the real evil of our party system is commonly stated wrong. it was stated wrong by lord rosebery, when he said that it prevented the best men from devoting themselves to politics, and that it encouraged a fanatical conflict. i doubt whether the best men ever would devote themselves to politics. the best men devote themselves to pigs and babies and things like that. and as for the fanatical conflict in party politics, i wish there was more of it. the real danger of the two parties with their two policies is that they unduly limit the outlook of the ordinary citizen. they make him barren instead of creative, because he is never allowed to do anything except prefer one existing policy to another. we have not got real democracy when the decision depends upon the people. we shall have real democracy when the problem depends upon the people. the ordinary man will decide not only how he will vote, but what he is going to vote about.

it is this which involves some weakness in many current aspirations towards the extension of the suffrage; i mean that, apart from all questions of abstract justice, it is not the smallness or largeness of the suffrage that is at present the difficulty of democracy. it is not the quantity of voters, but the quality of the thing they are voting about. a certain alternative is put before them by the powerful houses and the highest political class. two roads are opened to them; but they must go down one or the other. they cannot have what they choose, but only which they choose. to follow the process in practice we may put it thus. the suffragettes—if one may judge by their frequent ringing of his bell—want to do something to mr. asquith. i have no notion what it is. let us say (for the sake of argument) that they want to paint him green. we will suppose that it is entirely for that simple purpose that they are always seeking to have private interviews with him; it seems as profitable as any other end that i can imagine to such an interview. now, it is possible that the government of the day might go in for a positive policy of painting mr. asquith green; might give that reform a prominent place in their programme. then the party in opposition would adopt another policy, not a policy of leaving mr. asquith alone (which would be considered dangerously revolutionary), but some alternative course of action, as, for instance, painting him red. then both sides would fling themselves on the people, they would both cry that the appeal was now to the caesar of democracy. a dark and dramatic air of conflict and real crisis would arise on both sides; arrows of satire would fly and swords of eloquence flame. the greens would say that socialists and free lovers might well want to paint mr. asquith red; they wanted to paint the whole town red. socialists would indignantly reply that socialism was the reverse of disorder, and that they only wanted to paint mr. asquith red so that he might resemble the red pillar-boxes which typified state control. the greens would passionately deny the charge so often brought against them by the reds; they would deny that they wished mr. asquith green in order that he might be invisible on the green benches of the commons, as certain terrified animals take the colour of their environment.

there would be fights in the street perhaps, and abundance of ribbons, flags, and badges, of the two colours. one crowd would sing, “keep the red flag flying,” and the other, “the wearing of the green.” but when the last effort had been made and the last moment come, when two crowds were waiting in the dark outside the public building to hear the declaration of the poll, then both sides alike would say that it was now for democracy to do exactly what it chose. england herself, lifting her head in awful loneliness and liberty, must speak and pronounce judgment. yet this might not be exactly true. england herself, lifting her head in awful loneliness and liberty, might really wish mr. asquith to be pale blue. the democracy of england in the abstract, if it had been allowed to make up a policy for itself, might have desired him to be black with pink spots. it might even have liked him as he is now. but a huge apparatus of wealth, power, and printed matter has made it practically impossible for them to bring home these other proposals, even if they would really prefer them. no candidates will stand in the spotted interest; for candidates commonly have to produce money either from their own pockets or the party's; and in such circles spots are not worn. no man in the social position of a cabinet minister, perhaps, will commit himself to the pale-blue theory of mr. asquith; therefore it cannot be a government measure, therefore it cannot pass.

nearly all the great newspapers, both pompous and frivolous, will declare dogmatically day after day, until every one half believes it, that red and green are the only two colours in the paint-box. the observer will say: “no one who knows the solid framework of politics or the emphatic first principles of an imperial people can suppose for a moment that there is any possible compromise to be made in such a matter; we must either fulfil our manifest racial destiny and crown the edifice of ages with the august figure of a green premier, or we must abandon our heritage, break our promise to the empire, fling ourselves into final anarchy, and allow the flaming and demoniac image of a red premier to hover over our dissolution and our doom.” the daily mail would say: “there is no halfway house in this matter; it must be green or red. we wish to see every honest englishman one colour or the other.” and then some funny man in the popular press would star the sentence with a pun, and say that the daily mail liked its readers to be green and its paper to be read. but no one would even dare to whisper that there is such a thing as yellow.

for the purposes of pure logic it is clearer to argue with silly examples than with sensible ones: because silly examples are simple. but i could give many grave and concrete cases of the kind of thing to which i refer. in the later part of the boer war both parties perpetually insisted in every speech and pamphlet that annexation was inevitable and that it was only a question whether liberals or tories should do it. it was not inevitable in the least; it would have been perfectly easy to make peace with the boers as christian nations commonly make peace with their conquered enemies. personally i think that it would have been better for us in the most selfish sense, better for our pocket and prestige, if we had never effected the annexation at all; but that is a matter of opinion. what is plain is that it was not inevitable; it was not, as was said, the only possible course; there were plenty of other courses; there were plenty of other colours in the box. again, in the discussion about socialism, it is repeatedly rubbed into the public mind that we must choose between socialism and some horrible thing that they call individualism. i don't know what it means, but it seems to mean that anybody who happens to pull out a plum is to adopt the moral philosophy of the young horner—and say what a good boy he is for helping himself.

it is calmly assumed that the only two possible types of society are a collectivist type of society and the present society that exists at this moment and is rather like an animated muck-heap. it is quite unnecessary to say that i should prefer socialism to the present state of things. i should prefer anarchism to the present state of things. but it is simply not the fact that collectivism is the only other scheme for a more equal order. a collectivist has a perfect right to think it the only sound scheme; but it is not the only plausible or possible scheme. we might have peasant proprietorship; we might have the compromise of henry george; we might have a number of tiny communes; we might have co-operation; we might have anarchist communism; we might have a hundred things. i am not saying that any of these are right, though i cannot imagine that any of them could be worse than the present social madhouse, with its top-heavy rich and its tortured poor; but i say that it is an evidence of the stiff and narrow alternative offered to the civic mind, that the civic mind is not, generally speaking, conscious of these other possibilities. the civic mind is not free or alert enough to feel how much it has the world before it. there are at least ten solutions of the education question, and no one knows which englishmen really want. for englishmen are only allowed to vote about the two which are at that moment offered by the premier and the leader of the opposition. there are ten solutions of the drink question; and no one knows which the democracy wants; for the democracy is only allowed to fight about one licensing bill at a time.

so that the situation comes to this: the democracy has a right to answer questions, but it has no right to ask them. it is still the political aristocracy that asks the questions. and we shall not be unreasonably cynical if we suppose that the political aristocracy will always be rather careful what questions it asks. and if the dangerous comfort and self-flattery of modern england continues much longer there will be less democratic value in an english election than in a roman saturnalia of slaves. for the powerful class will choose two courses of action, both of them safe for itself, and then give the democracy the gratification of taking one course or the other. the lord will take two things so much alike that he would not mind choosing from them blindfold—and then for a great jest he will allow the slaves to choose.