H.G. Wells and the Critique of "Government by Hustings' Bawling"

The phrase "Government by Hustings' Bawling" offers a sharp critique of democratic systems potentially dominated by populist appeal rather than reasoned deliberation. It describes a scenario where the noise and emotion of election campaigns unduly influence the actual process of governing. Understanding this concept provides valuable context for why thinkers like H.G. Wells sought alternatives like Election by Jury.

What is "Hustings' Bawling"?

The term combines two key ideas prevalent in the political landscape, particularly around the turn of the 20th century:

• Hustings: This word originally referred to a specific court, but by the 19th and early 20th centuries, it became strongly associated with the platforms erected for political candidates to deliver speeches during election campaigns, especially the famous one at Westminster. By extension, "the hustings" came to mean the entire process and environment of electioneering and public campaigning.

• Bawling: This term is used critically to denote loud, unrestrained, often overly simplistic, and emotionally charged speech aimed at swaying large crowds. It implies a lack of nuanced argument and a focus on rousing popular sentiment.

Together, "hustings' bawling" paints a picture of a political system where leadership and policy might be decided more by the loudest voices and most effective emotional appeals made during campaigns, rather than by careful consideration of facts, competence, or long-term consequences.

H.G. Wells's Critique

H.G. Wells, in works like his 1903 book Mankind in the Making, expressed deep dissatisfaction with the functioning of contemporary electoral democracy. He observed how easily mass electorates could be swayed by simplistic arguments and manipulated by savvy campaigners. He felt the prevailing system often failed to identify and select genuinely competent individuals for public office.

While definitive proof of Wells using the exact phrase "hustings' bawling" is elusive, the phenomenon it describes is precisely what he criticized: a system vulnerable to popular passion, where the ability to effectively "bawl" from the "hustings" could be more politically advantageous than possessing the qualities needed for good governance.

Election by Jury as an Antidote

Wells's exploration of alternative selection methods, including the concept known as election by jury, stemmed directly from this critique. He envisioned a system where a smaller, selected body—akin to a jury—would engage in a more rational and deliberative process:

• Directly interrogating candidates.

• Discussing their merits and flaws in private, away from public pressure.

• Making a considered judgment based on evidence and reasoned argument.

This approach was designed specifically to counteract the perceived flaws of "hustings' bawling." By removing the need for mass appeal and performance on a public stage, Wells believed a jury-like body could better assess the true fitness of candidates, leading to more competent and responsible governance. His proposal aimed to replace the noise of the campaign trail with the quiet deliberation of a selection committee.