Page:Democracy, theoretical and practical (IA democracytheoret00hendrich).pdf/21

 remove him within that time. He appoints his own Cabinet ministers, and they are responsible to him, not to the House of Representatives. This may, and probably does mean that the Executive in the United States can act more decisively than the British Cabinet; but it means, too, that harmony between the Legislature and the Executive has been far more thoroughly assured in Great Britain than in the United States. The Government of Great Britain is more organic than the Government of the United States, which still preserves the character of a system of checks and balances. The men who drew up the United States Constitution showed' a deep distrust of public opinion. The British Constitution is a contrivance for giving effect to the will of the people at any time. Few, if any, of the American republics that have adopted the presidential executive of the United States have escaped civil war or dictatorship. The British system leaves no reasonable excuse for either.

The danger for us does not lie in the lack of control of ministers. There is no possibility now of a Duke of Buckingham leading his country to failure after failure in defiance of Parliament. Our danger lies rather in the enfeeblement of the Executive by excessive criticism through the press and public meetings, and interference from organized public opinion in the electorates, as well as a want of scope for the exercise of initiative and judgment inside Parliament because of the lavish promises made in electioneering campaigns, and the pressure which is brought to bear on Parliamentary leaders by caucus and other organizations unknown to the Constitution. The further this goes the nearer we approach to ochlocracy, and the further we wander away from the true principles of British democratic government.