DOUGLAS COLLEGE LIBRARY,
ie i ‘ secs le

PRCHIVES

"New" Politics, Old Governance:
A Reaction To "Innovative Politics" - (Cont'd.)

service. On the other hand, the guiding principle of governmental action is
primarily service to people. And yet the argument that government should be
limited strictly to its traditionally narrow function of governing seems to me
to be unreal. From time immemorial, government has always been profoundly
interested in the economic life of society. Quite apart from the fact that
gevernment has been known at times to work in collaboration with the propertied
interests in society, few business enterprises are known to willingly reject

government offers of subsidy as a means of helping to shore up a business that
is in danger of collapsing.

It seems difficult to consider the latter school of conservative thinking
as anything less than atavistic conservatism. A substantial part of its
premises could be rejected even by the Progressive Conservatives, whose name
emphasizes by implication the liberal outlook of modern conservative parties.
And yet a reading of the speeches of the Social Creditists at their recent
leadership convention in Vancouver discloses how sentimentally attached to
the atavistic features of conservative thinking they are. The chorus of the
Free Enterprise Parties in British Columbia, spearheaded by the Socreds, is
truly reminiscent of the laissez faire movement of the eighteenth century.

Democratic socialism as understood today is neither a bugbear nor a Moloch
which can only be maintained through the frightful sacrifice of the people's
freedom. The concept signifies the increasing participation of the people,
through a democratically elected government, in the ownership, production,
direction and sharing of wealth. Planning and direction involve the regulation
of the economy towards the satisfaction of overriding social goals. This does
not mean the destruction, denial or elimination of private enterprise. On the
contrary, it accepts and operates on the fundamental democratic assumptions
underlying the organization of the society. Its essential purpose is to control
and restrict the pathological results of unregulated competition with the
resultant inequalities which are a negation of the democratic hypothesis.

It is apparent that there is no such thing as freedom for a man who, under
normal conditions, is not financially free. Government intervention in the
economy is a means of helping those adversely affected by rapid social changes
to adequately cope with such changes. It seeks to afford them the necessary
protection against sickness, accidents, unemployment, and the destitution and
suffering consequent upon a condition of indigence. These, broadly speaking,
are the overriding goals of social policy to which all modern governments are
committed. And by the logic of this commitment, all governments, irrespective o
ideological faith, are induced more or less to intervene in the economic life
ef their domains. The debate as to whether a Free Enterprise or Socialist
Government is better is largely a quarrel over words. But the trends towards

a more socialist solution to the problems of the future are more than clear.

If I were asked .to give my view of governments today as a socio-political
phenomenon, I should contend that all governments are, in the ultimate analysis,
socialistic. What really seems to be in issue between the ''Free Enterprise"
and "Socialist" Parties is the range and character of the clientele which they
are theoretically committed to serve. ‘

Okon Udokang