Outspoken Essays | Page 3

historian can suppose that one of the most
widespread and successful forms of human association has been
permanently extinguished because the Central Empires were not quite
strong enough to conquer Europe, an attempt which has always failed,
and probably will always fail. The issue is not fully decided, even for
our own generation. The ascendancy will belong to that nation which is
the best organised, the most strenuous, the most intelligent, the most
united. Before the war none would have hesitated to name Germany as
holding this position; and until the downfall of the Empire the nation
seemed to possess those qualities unimpaired. The three Empires
collapsed in hideous chaos as soon as they deposed their monarchs. In
the case of Russia, it is difficult to imagine any recovery until the
monarchy is restored; and Germany would probably be well-advised to
choose some member of the imperial family as a constitutional
sovereign. A monarch frequently represents his subjects better than an
elected assembly; and if he is a good judge of character he is likely to
have more capable and loyal advisers. President Wilson's declaration
that 'a steadfast concert for peace can never be maintained except by a
partnership of democratic nations; for no autocratic government could
ever be trusted to keep faith within it,' is one of the most childish
exhibitions of doctrinaire naïveté which ever proceeded from the mouth
of a public man. History gives no countenance to the theory that
popular governments are either more moral or more pacific than strong
monarchies. The late Lord Salisbury, in one of his articles in the
Quarterly Review, spoke the truth on this subject. 'Moderation,
especially in the matter of territory, has never been a characteristic of
democracy. Wherever it has had free play, in the ancient world or the
modern, in the old hemisphere or the new, a thirst for empire and a
readiness for aggressive war has always marked it. Though
governments may have an appearance and even a reality of pacific
intent, their action is always liable to be superseded by the violent and

vehement operations of mere ignorance.' The United States are no
exception to this rule. They have extended their dominion by much the
same means as the empire of the Tsars or our own. Texas and Upper
California, the Philippines and Porto Rico, were annexed forcibly; New
Mexico, Alaska, and Louisiana were bought; Florida was acquired by
treaty; Maine filched from Canada. In no case were the wishes of the
inhabitants consulted. Our own experience of republicanism is the same.
It was during the short period when Great Britain had no king that
Cromwell's court-poet, Andrew Marvell, urged him to complete his
glorious career by demolishing our present allies:
A Cæsar he, ere long, to Gaul, To Italy an Hannibal.
On the other hand, none of the 'autocrats' wanted this war. The Kaiser
was certainly pushed into it.
Democracy is a form of government which may be rationally defended,
not as being good, but as being less bad than any other. Its strongest
merits seem to be: first, that the citizens of a democracy have a sense of
proprietorship and responsibility in public affairs, which in times of
crisis may add to their tenacity and endurance. The determination of the
Federals in the American Civil War, and of the French and British in
the four years' struggle against Germany, may be legitimately adduced
as arguments for democracy. When De Tocqueville says that 'it is hard
for a democracy to begin or to end a war,' the second is truer than the
first. And, secondly, the educational value of democracy is so great that
it may be held to counterbalance many defects. Mill decides in favour
of democracy mainly on the ground that 'it promotes a better and higher
form of national character than any other polity,' since government by
authority stunts the intellect, narrows the sympathies, and destroys the
power of initiative. 'The perfect commonwealth,' says Mr. Zimmern,' is
a society of free men and women, each at once ruling and being ruled,'
It is also fair to argue that monarchies do not escape the worst evils of
democracies. An autocracy is often obliged to oppress the educated
classes and to propitiate the mob. Domitian massacred senators with
impunity, and only fell 'postquam cerdonibus esse timendus coeperat.'
If an autocracy does not rest on the army, which leads to the chaos of

praetorianism, it must rely on 'panem et circenses.' Hence it has some
of the worst faults of democracy, without its advantages. As Mr.
Graham Wallas says: 'When a Tsar or a bureaucracy finds itself forced
to govern in opposition to a vague national feeling which may at any
moment create an overwhelming national purpose, the autocrat
becomes the most unscrupulous of demagogues, and stirs