When I moved the adjournment of the debate, I had just been answering Deputy Dillon who had been asking me whether I really believed that I was not over-simplifying the situation which had arisen in Italy. I should like to refer him to the opinion of Lord Curzon of the British Government, who is on record as saying that Italian Premiers and Foreign Ministers to whom he had spoken at the time, all blamed P.R. as the main reason for the political instability of Italy, prior to the advent of Mussolini.
I would also refer him to a prophetic statement by one member of the Italian Parliament, before the unfortunate system was adopted in 1919. I refer to Signor Alessio, who, in one of his speeches, said:—
"Application of this system would lead to a very bad functioning of the Chamber, would make it impossible to form a lasting Cabinet and would bring about in the long run a paralysis of public life."
That was a prophetic statement by one member of the Italian Parliament, before P.R. was introduced. How right, unfortunately, he was. His warning was ignored, just as warnings given now in this House are being ignored by some people. What did it lead to? It led to the dictatorship of Mussolini, from which the only escape was a horrible and bloody death for that dictator. That is unfortunate history. Let us never forget it.
After the Second World War, in 1946 P.R. was unfortunately introduced again, resulting in 12 political parties at the outset in Italy, the main ones being the Christian Democrats, the Socialists and the Communists. In the first election, the Christian Democrats got 37.3 per cent. of the votes, the Socialists got 20.7 and the Communists got 18. The proportion, therefore, was 37, 20 and 18. That made it impossible to form a Government without a coalition and the Christian Democrats had to ally with the Communists. Does that make sense to any one? It certainly does not make sense to me. In 1948, it was possible to have another election where the circumstances were rather in favour of the Christian Democrats as against the Communists. Outside incidents contributed to help the Christian Democratic Party. The first of those external influences was the collapse of democratic government in Czechoslovakia, owing to the Communist coup d'état there. That in itself was a warning to the Italian people to find out what they were doing in allowing the Communist Party to act in their own way.
In addition, the situation was so serious that this late Holiness Pope Pius also intervened in a non-partisan way but in an effective and most proper way. He even addressed a meeting in St. Peter's Square, which is reported to have been attended by 300,000 people, pointing out to the Italian electorate, before the Italian election, that the eyes of the world were on the Italian people and that this was just another phase of the battle between Christianity and Communism, between Western civilisation and the forces of Russian Communism which were on the up-grade. With those two external influences, the Christian Democrats just managed to make it, with a return of 51.5 per cent. of the seats; so while there was a political crisis, one Party, the Christian Democrats, were just able to form a Government with an over-all majority. Almost immediately after the crisis had disappeared, the fortunes of the Christian Democrats began to ebb and in the following year, we get some indication of that, when, in the elections in Corsica, the Christian Democrats' majority dropped from 51.5 to 34.1. That shows the extreme danger of P.R. both before and since the war in Italy.
Now look at Germany, where P.R. was introduced in 1919. Let us look at the statement of the President of the Democratic Party, Herr Naumann:—
"I do not believe that we will get to a satisfactory solution of the problem of forming a majority, but I fear that we are creating a condition which can be remedied only by a later coup d'état.”
Herr Naumann in 1919 once again made one of those horribly accurate prophecies. That is exactly what did happen. A situation was created which was remedied, if you like to use that phrase, by a later coup d'état. From 1920 to 1932, there were 13 Governments—in 12 years—11 of which were minority Governments. Now, what are the Opposition Parties going to say to that? They are arguing about the danger of minority Governments in a straight vote. Here in Germany under a P.R. system, there were 13 Governments, 11 of which were minority Governments. Again, there was the same trouble of the growth of Parties, the multiplicity of Parties, including, in this instance, the Nazi Party, until it got to the stage where there were over 30 political Parties operating in Germany, pulling and dragging against each other, making coalitions in the formation of cabinets increasingly impossible. That continued until Hindenburg was unable to call on anyone to form a Government, anyone except Hitler. Hitler, again like Mussolini, was the only man who was a man of strength and a man who knew where he was going. Everyone else was dithering around, pulling and dragging and arguing their own Party advantage. Not only was that the end of the situation but that could not have happened if the Nazi Party had not been allowed to grow up.
Anyone who looks dispassionately at the election returns of the time, will be quite clear that the Nazi Party would never have been able to gain in strength in the German Parliament, if it had not been for the P.R. system. Once they got their toe in, the Nazi members surrendered a large proportion of their parliamentary allowances to Party funds, thereby financing Party funds and allowing the Party to grow. Furthermore, they used the free rail travel, which was a privilege of all members of the German Parliament, to go around the country on propaganda tours, so that the processes of parliamentary democracy were used to destroy parliamentary democracy. That surely is the greatest danger of it.
Take Austria, itself where an equality of Parties occurred, where a vote of censure was at last proposed in the House, where the voting was equal, where the Speaker resigned so that he could cast his vote. Apparently he had to do that, he could not exercise a casting vote unless he resigned. The Deputy Speaker also resigned to cast his vote, and the second Deputy Speaker saw what the first Deputy Speaker did and he resigned to cast his vote. It was only then they discovered that there was no other Deputy Speaker, or no one to occupy the Chair, to give a ruling or to adjourn the sitting, and they all packed up and went home. There was a complete collapse of the parliamentary system and the result was the dictatorship of Dollfuss.
Take Poland, one of these countries having a P.R. system. From 1918 to 1926 it had 16 Cabinets with an average life of five and a half months each. Obviously, the electorate lost heart. It did not know and did not care what was going on, so it handed the country over to Pilsudski, who allowed the parliamentary system to totter on until it collapsed from its own weakness. Take Greece. In 1936 there was almost an equal division between the Royalist bloc and the Republicans, 48 per cent. and 44 per cent., so that neither could form a Government. The Communists with 6 per cent. had the balance of power and were, in fact, the Government and it led to the collapse of parliamentary democracy and the dictatorship of Metaxas. After the second World War Greece went back to the P.R. system again and by 1950 there were 90 separate political Parties contesting the election held in Greece in that year. Is it any wonder you cannot get any settlement of the Cyprus question when you have a Greek Government of such a composition that it is quite unable to make any helpful contribution of any sort to anyone?
Take Belgium, where up to 1940 there was the same pulling and dragging and the formation of coalitions, with a political vacuum at the top. But, luckily for Belgium, it had a King who was sufficient of a statesman to fill that vacuum and he managed to keep parliamentary democracy alive up to the start of the war, though it was a very dangerous and very difficult position. After the war we come back again to the same dreadful, wretched position of coalition after coalition. One coalition which lasted quite a considerable time was between the Catholic Party, the Socialists and the Communists. Can anyone make sense out of that? What possibility is there of anything in common between a Catholic Party as such, and the Communist Party as such? Someone is fooling someone. Who is fooling whom?
Are the Communists Communists? Are the Catholics Catholics? Are the Socialists Socialists? They cannot all work together on a common programme. It cannot be done. It got to such a state that this year for four months there was no Belgian Government at all. There was no Cabinet for four months and it was just the luck of Belgium that, during those four months, there was not a crisis. If there had been a crisis the door was wide open for some strong man to take over and he would have done so. He would have had to because they could not form a Government for four consecutive months.
As I pointed out before, the Scandinavian countries have a limited P.R. system which is weighted very much in favour of the largest Parties and, consequently, does not show to the same extent the damaging results of a real P.R. system. It does show some of the snags but not as many as other countries, but it is stated in certain propagandist speeches that we should follow the lead of the progressive European countries like Scandinavia and so on. First of all let us make it perfectly clear they do not use the single transferable vote in multiple constituencies. They use the Party list system which is quite different.
In European countries you do not vote for a candidate; you vote for a Party. As an elector I want to know whom I am voting for, and that I am not just voting for a Party; but under the European system you vote purely for Party and the Party decide who is going to get the seat.
Switzerland was also mentioned by Deputy J.A. Costello. It is very easy to ask: "Why not adopt the Swiss system?" But are you going to start dividing Ireland into cantons? That system of canton division in Switzerland is very good for historical and linguistic reasons. In Switzerland they have government on the canton government system and each canton Government has a tremendous amount of autonomy, but we have no possibility of working under the canton system and, therefore, as far as that example is concerned, it has no relevance for us.
Now we come back to France and I am sorry if this seems to worry people so much. France did enjoy various forms of government up to the first world war, principally using what is called the second ballot, where a big majority on a first ballot may give one Party the seats, or a great majority of the seats in a constituency, and the second ballot is worked on the P.R. system. There was a great element of proportionalism in the electoral system of France up to the first world war and, as a result, during the Third Republic, there were 106 Cabinets with an average duration of eight months each. That takes us only to the beginning of the first world war. The extremists gained ground considerably and there was that parliamentary paralysis which became so evident in 1939 and 1940. Then we come to 1945, the first post-war election. In 1945 France voted on a straight vote in the provincial elections, and I would like to give the figures and results from that provincial election because I think they are very valuable and informative. On a straight vote the Socialists, using round figures, had 800, the Radicals 600 and the Communists 300. Then we come to the general election to the National Assembly, in France, which is conducted under a P.R. system.
There was one election in 1945 and two in 1946. Instead of the Socialists being 800, as against the Communists 300, the Communists went into the lead in 1945 in the National Assembly with 152 against the Socialists' 143. In the first election in 1946 the Communists had 146 and the Socialists 129 and, in the second election in 1946, the Communists had 168 and the Socialists 105. You can see the results of a change from a straight vote system to a P.R. system in those figures. The Socialists which in that particular case represented more what we would consider to be the ordinary labour movement as allied to the British Labour Movement, fell from a proportion of 8 to 3 in regard to the Communists simply because the P.R. system favours the extremists every time.
After 1946 you had the system known as apparentement or arrangement between the Parties which was an effort by the French Parliament to overcome the inherent weaknesses of the P.R. system and which allowed Parties, instead of voting separately, to combine their votes. That system did succeed partly in 1951 but failed in 1956 simply because the Parties could not agree as to which of them should get in touch with which, which of them should give and which should take. The result was in 1956 a further election which resulted in an impasse, a complete deadlock and ultimately the taking over of Government by the French Army, a virtual peaceful mutiny of the French Forces owing to the complete incapacity of the French Government to grapple with its duties. That was because of the multiplicity of Parties which, in turn was due to the P.R. system. Now we come to the new Constitution set up by General de Gaulle who is a very acute observer of the political scene and he has made a very ruthless judgment on the whole matter. One of the most important things he has done is to reserve to himself extremely wide powers so that if the unfortunate aftermath of the P.R. system is not completely overcome in this election and if there is any sign of paralysis in the parliamentary system, he as President will be able to take over as an individual. Again you see the only solution for the catastrophes which may result from the P.R. system is a dictatorship.
I do not want for a moment to accuse General de Gaulle of being a dictator. Basically he is a democrat and a man who has the interest of the French people very much at heart. He has no particular desire for power for its own sake. But General de Gaulle is not immortal. His time will come and powers are in the Constitution which will enable one man virtually to control the French State. I say without fear of contradiction that that power has only been given to the French President because of the paralysis which has already developed in the system due to a multiplicity of Parties under a proportional system.
We have also had reference during this debate to Northern Ireland. I would be the first to admit that there was a tremendous amount of feeling when Northern Ireland decided to abolish P.R. and grave fears were expressed that it would result in discrimination and the victimisation of the nationalist element in the Six Counties. I wonder how many Deputies know the actual result? I will be perfectly fair and say that I only got it a week ago. Under P.R., just before the dissolution, the Unionists had 35 seats. On a straight vote immediately afterwards the Unionists got 37 seats, a gain of two. The Nationalists under P.R. had 11; under a straight vote they also had 11. I am sorry to have to disclose this to the Labour Party but Labour under P.R. had four seats and on a straight vote this was reduced to one. The Independents, and this again is very interesting, numbered two under P.R. but under the straight vote they had three.
That, to my mind, disposes of quite a number of points. It did not affect the Nationalist representation in the slightest. There were 11 in both cases. It did not wipe out the Independents. In actual fact, it increased the Independents, at the expense of one of the Parties, from two to three. Let us get this quite clear in our minds; if we do not we shall be working on a completely wrong basis. There is therefore no justification for saying that the abolition of P.R. will mean that the Party which is in power under P.R. will sweep into power again with an overpowering majority. If Northern Ireland is any guide, and I think it should be, it is perfectly clear that the Unionists gained two seats at the expense of Labour. That is the sort of thing that can happen in any general election and no particular significance can be attached to it. Furthermore, it does not mean the elimination of all Independents. Both of these assertions have been made earlier in the debate.
I cannot see why it should be claimed that in a straightforward vote the people will favour only this particular Party. No evidence has been produced to support that contention. Another point also deserves consideration and that is that no other national Parliament whatever uses our system of P.R. You can say that everybody is out of step except us, but that does not make sense to me. The only other parliamentary bodies which use P.R. are the Tasmanian Lower House, which is not a national, sovereign assembly, the Malta Legislative House and the Australian Senate, so that there is no Parliament except ours using this system. The fact that so many have refused to use it surely shows that our contention is right. It has been seen not to work in so many other places that no other responsible Legislature would adopt it for a moment.
The most incredible results can happen under P.R. There was one case in the British House of Commons on the last occasion when university representatives were elected to the House. They were elected on the P.R. system and one of the candidates, Mr. Kenneth Lindsay, lost his deposit and yet was elected. What happened was that, owing to the curious regulations which they had, Mr. Lindsay lost on the first count and two or three others who were below him also lost their deposits. They gradually shoved him over the danger level and eventually into the seat in Westminster. Therefore, those who claim that only strange things happen in a straight vote can see that the same applies to P.R.
One of the greatest benefits of a straight vote to my mind is that it is easier for new entrants to political life. Again I can quote my own experience. I was very new to political life when I contested the general election in 1954, and I was a very good second on first preferences votes. I did not get any preferences after that and people who were very much below me on first preference votes passed me and got in. I was left high and dry. Maybe some will say it was a good idea, and it saved a certain amount of trouble by my exclusion during that period, but at the same time if it had been a straight vote I would have preferred it as a new boy coming in, and I would probably have made it.
Another thing is, and I do not want to appear hard on the more senior members of the House, that the straight vote does make it very much harder for the older members. The situation is that under P.R. as long as you have made your name and are known you will get sufficient preferences to get in on seventh, eighth, nineth or tenth counts, so that an ex-Minister could be absolutely doting and a cripple and yet be certain of getting in under P.R. Let us be perfectly fair. Do the members of this House feel that that is a good contribution to political life? It is exactly what the public say, that this is a racket and once you get in you hold on. We deny that and I think if we really want to be more convincing in our denials we should go to a system which would make that sort of claim impossible.
Secondly, the straight vote leads to strong Government. This point gives rise to confusion because the Opposition are saying that what we mean by strong Government is dictatorship. Of course the Government is always a dictatorship if you are in Opposition to the extent that it is only the Government because it has a majority and if it has a majority it can, technically speaking, do what it likes. But in actual fact no Government can do what it likes because sooner or later it must face the electorate again.
It does tend to give a strong Government and that leads to freedom of expression within the Government Party. I shall be perfectly frank and here is my own case. If the Fianna Fáil majority was one or two and the Party Whip was cracking round us morning, noon and night, I would not have been able to take the attitude, to which Deputy O'Higgins referred earlier in the debate, on the Finance Bill this year. Neither would Deputy Haughey. Deputy Haughey and I opposed that Bill and we fought the Minister for days on it. We could do that—and I think it was valuable that we should do it—from within the Government Party because our majority was sufficiently large and we were not imperilling the Government by adopting that attitude. I think Deputy O'Higgins appreciated the action we took in that matter; I am not sure that the Minister for Finance appreciated it so much but the point was that we were enabled without creating a crisis to speak our minds openly, simply because we had a sufficient majority.
