“Do you really mean”, asked the President, incredulously, “that you choose any ordinary man that comes to hand and make him despot –that you trust to the chance of some alphabetical list…”.
“And why not?” cried Barker. “Did not half the historical nations trust to the chance of the eldest sons of eldest sons, and did not half of them get on tolerably well? To have a perfect system is impossible; to have a system is indispensable. All hereditary monarchies were a matter of luck: so are alphabetical monarchies. Can you find a deep philosophical meaning in the difference between the Stuarts and the Hanoverians? Believe me, I will undertake to find a deep philosophical meaning in the contrast between the dark tragedy of the A’s, and the solid success of the B’s”.
“And you risk it?” asked the other. “Though the man may be a tyrant, or a cynic or a criminal?”.
“We risk it”, answered Barker, with a perfect placidity. “Suppose he is a tyrant –he is still a check on a hundred tyrants. Suppose he is a cynic, it is to is interest to govern well. Suppose he is a criminal –by removing poverty and substituting power, we put a check on his criminality. In short, by substituting despotism we have put a total check on the criminal and a partial check on all the rest”.
The Nicaraguan old gentleman leaned over with a queer expression in his eyes.
“My church, sir”, he said, “has taught me to respect faith. I do not wish to speak with any disrespect of yours, however fantastic. But do you really mean that you will trust to the ordinary man, the man who may happen to come next, as a good despot?”.
“I do”, said Barker, simply. “He may not be a good man. But he will be a good despot. For when he comes to a mere business routine of government he will endeavour to do ordinary justice. Do we not assume the same thing in a jury?”.
