The advantages of such a method of consultation are obvious. It provides, in the first place, the means of access to the government of all the interests involved in the decision.
They get adequate opportunity to give an authoritative and representative exposition to their opinions and, at the same time, get an opportunity to learn and appreciate the point of view of the government.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
They can, accordingly, oppose or support the policy and decisions of the government more effectively and their appeal to public opinion is direct and based upon actual knowledge and established facts.
It is a well balanced judgment capable of organising true public opinion. Secondly, the representatives of the interests concerned can supply to the government authentic and valuable information on which details of the measure may be constructed.
Image Source: 185.26.182.219
They can even suggest the probable results of the working of such measures. “They form, in brief, a deposit of expertise upon the different aspects of policy which, effectively used, creates an atmosphere of responsibility about governmental acts.
If the Minister acts upon their opinion, he is at least building upon a foundation of experience; if he rejects them, the creation of an opposition and, as a consequence, of the discussion that is the life-blood of democratic governance, is adequately assured.”
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Moreover, those who stand outside the machinery of government can only be made responsible when they are associated with it. “The only way to do thing for people,” emphasises Laski, “is to make them do things for themselves.”
Such a step is really a democratic step, because by making the people responsible we make their will effective and increase their inventiveness. The people feel that it is their government. This is the essence of democracy. The policy formulated and decisions taken by the Ministers may not always be for the public welfare.
The Ministers are essentially swayed in their decisions by two important considerations: the solidarity of the government and the unity of the party which they represent. They have always to keep in mind that the resignation of a powerful colleague, if he happens to disagree with the official policy, must be prevented.
Even a compromise may be arrived at which may not be coincident with the public welfare. But such an eventuality is not likely to happen if there are proper and representative channels of consultation. Here the discussion “is rooted in the principles of its subjects; personal considerations are, a priori, out of place.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Minister is dealing directly with minds and only indirectly with votes. He is being driven to counter reason with reason. He is being trained in responsibility to choose whose desires must shape his will.”
Consultation brings the whole hierarchy of services into organic association with public opinion let in a continuous stream of ideas and suggestions and performs the equally necessary function of educating public opinion. The officials and experts would thus become advisers of one another and of the public.
The cross-fertilization would largely change the spirit of administration. Finally, these thought-organisations would counteract the tendency of legislatures and cabinets to function primarily as will-organisation and of the services to turn into soulless machines.
“They would establish an organic relationship between government, knowledge and experience of life, and bring the administration into line with democratic requirements. Thus will political democracy become creative?”