EAST NORFOLK AND DEMOCRACY
By LAWRENCE ATHILL
ASITUATION of some interest has just been liquedated in East Norfolk. In the throes of it a few days ago, I felt like a man who cannot see the soil for the crop, and a sadly mixed and tangled crop it was. But in the long run it is the soil which matters most. Let us look at it, this soil of our democracy.
East Norfolk, the land of Broads and barley, is a peculiar pace and its people a peculiar people, some of them speaking a tongue hardly to be understood by strangers; hospitable, but clannish, liking Norfolk men best. Its agriculture, its very staff of life, is peculiar too, with problems and interests shared in their entirety by few if any other districts. Hence they have been rightly called the problems and interests of a section.
But during the present election, I have heard them wrongly so called, with an accent of condemna- tion or contempt, in circles both high and low. In this attitude towards sectionalism I see one symptom of demo- cratic heresy. Those who speak in this way seem to forget that a democratic Parliament is one in which no section gains undue prominence but in which equally all are represented. They suggest that the Norfolk man, or any other man, for that matter, is narrow or selfish if he tries to send to Parlia- ment the best possible exponent of local interests. Actually it is his obvious duty to democracy to do so.
For the last forty years or more East Norfolk has been predominantly Liberal, and Liberal it was when, in 1938, its representation was crystalised by the gentleman's agree- ment designed to stop throat-cutting and stabilise party balance among the supporters of the National Government. Thenceforward, as long as the National Government should stand, the party machines, if not the individual voters, were pledged to support none but a Liberal National candi- date in it. The agreement was honourable, well-intentioned and expedient. It was not, strictly speaking, democratic. For a while it worked.
But, when the seat fell vacant some weeks back, it was evident that there was some grit in the workings, for the Liberals put forward a candidate who was quite unacceptable to many people for three reasons. He was not a Norfolk man. He knew nothing at first hand about any sort of agriculture, least of all East Norfolk agriculture. And there was a local man on the carpet who seemed to many people to be much better qualified. Before we go into the subsequent fortunes of these two men, let us see why the Liberals were so unlucky. There were plenty of suitable Liberals in Norfolk, but none who could afford to stand. The expense of a by-election, to be followed within .a few months by a General Election, was too much for them. There at once you have a very foul patch in our democratic soil, not in the least peculiar to Norfolk, but from which many constituencies suffer, and especially country ones where even moderately wealthy men with roots in the soil grow daily scarcer.
It is not necessary to dwell on this point because it has already been made obvious elsewhere. It is a terribly serious one. A means test is in effect applied to Conservative and Liberal candidates in many constituences, either by tradition or by the apathetic reluctance of Conservative and Liberal supporters to put their hands in their pockets. Not only is this utterly undemocratic in principle, but it robs both the country and the constituences of many men who would be far better servants of both than are some of those whom the possession of wealth has enabled to stand. It is one of the roots of the trouble in East Norfolk today.
So the Liberals went further afield, and at last they did find an agriculturist. For reasons very creditable to himself he made his candidature conditional on the Norfolk Branch of the National Farmers' Union accepting him. It did not accept him, chiefly because he came from a county which specialises in farming old pastures and has problems and interests sometimes diametrically' opposite to those of East Norfolk. This, I have said, was the chief reason, and I have been assured on the best of authority that it was the only reason, which influenced many of those who refused him their support. But there crept into the resolution which embodied this refusal a clause which, even if accidental, at least seemed to point to a rift within the lute of inter- party agreement. For this clause expressed the resolve of the Branch not to transfer its support to any nominee of the National Liberals.
However well or badly this clause expressed the opinion of the meeting which passed it, undoubtedly it reflected that of a good many parliamentary voters. There were a certain number of Conservatives in the constituency who were opposed to the Liberal National candidate, not only because he was in their view unsuitable, but because he was a Liberal National. One may not, and I personally do not, agree with them, but one cannot condemn a free voter who kicks against the pricks of a convention, arrived at above his head, by which the scope of his franchise is directly or indirectly curtailed.
If such voters exist in East Norfolk on the Conservative side they probably exist on the Liberal side in many con- stituencies and in greater numbers, for the agreement would seem to ride more heavily on Liberals than on Conservatives. It looks as though the time has come, from the democratic point of view if not from that of expediency, either for the agreement to be revised and made elastic, or for supporters of the National Government to invite election purely as such, with no party tags or hyphens.
To return to this particular election, the Liberals, baulked of their agriculturist, eventually produced Mr. Medlicott, apparently an excellent man but disqualified in many agricul- tural electors' eyes by his ignorance of their craft and a reminiscent flavour of free trade. Into the ring against him the farmers popped their champion, Mr. Wright, a man of proved ability, a supporter of Mr. Chamberlain and an agricultural expert. The fight was on.
Now the party machine came into action operating on the rigid lines of the gentleman's agreement. As was only natural, the officials of the Conservative Association who had co-operated with their Liberal colleagues in proposing Mr. Medlicott for adoption stuck unofficially to their guns, and turned them on Mr. Wright. There was also thunder in high quarters from the Left. And quite logically, but to the simple voter's great confusion, from the very summit of Olympus Mr. Chamberlain dropped a thunderbolt in the shape of a letter of support to Mr. Medlicott. So the poor simple voters, striving to send to the support of an admired leader the man who, in their views, could represent them best, found their own leader in the field against them. No wonder that perplexity prevailed.
Now the air is cleared. The leader has issued his ukase before which his supporters needs must bow. It is a pretty pickle, out of which the democratic principle has come but ill. Everyone, or almost everyone, has acted honestly. The leaders' pledge is honoured. The simple voter has fought a democratic fight, but he has failed.
Yet I am glad I am a simple voter, for the democratic leader whose pledges may one day conflict with principles runs the risk that, on that day, it may be justly said of him that " faith unfaithful keeps him falsely true."
Previous page
