What minorities have we got in this country that need special representation as minorities apart from the representation of the three political Parties we have here at present? This system, he says, gives these minorities representation. The people are represented in the present Dáil by three political Parties and three Independent Deputies. I do not know if any one of the three Independent Deputies considers himself to be representing any particular minority view. Certainly I do not know of any minority that there is here unless Deputy Fitzpatrick is referring to religious minorities. If so, there is in fact in the Dáil representation of religious minorities but these minorities have not deemed it necessary to organise themselves on the basis of minority Parties. I should like to know what minorities Deputy Fitzpatrick is referring to as needing the special representation that this system is designed to give them, this system of multi-member constituencies.
Deputy Fitzpatrick says that the system of multi-member constituencies which ensures representation for minorities and therefore encourages the formation of minority Parties is good for democracy. Perhaps he will explain to us how a democracy could function if the situation which he envisages of large numbers of these minorities being represented here ever materialises. How would a Government be formed if the basis of representation is to be the basis of minority sectional interests rather than the basis of political Parties putting forward proposals in the interests of the community as a whole and getting votes on the basis of those proposals? I cannot see how the people are going to be able to choose a Government if the situation which Deputy Fitzpatrick foresees develops. I admit that the system of election that we are asking the people to rid themselves of is designed to achieve that position, to bring about the position in which it will be feasible for people to organise themselves on the basis of small sectional groups and to obtain representation here.
In the earlier part of his remarks, Deputy Fitzpatrick presented this as the desirable thing. He said that it would be good for democracy and I want to ask him how democracy could possibly function if the Dáil is to be composed of a number of people representing minority interests who may be in small Parties or may not, who might be just individuals who secured representation on the basis of being particularly interested in the well-being of particular sections of the community? Obviously the Government could only then be formed after an election because it will not be until after the election that the composition of the Dáil will be known and only then would these different individuals and small groups be able to get down to the process of bargaining among themselves for the formation of a Government. Certainly there would be no time for the formation of any policy. This situation, which both Deputy Fitzpatrick and I admit, is the objective of the electoral system we have would deprive the people of the opportunity of choosing a government for themselves. I quite agree that this all depends on the view we take of what is the purpose of elections, whether it is intended that at elections the people should choose their Government or whether they should just choose a debating society, people who represent different sectional views, and that the public should have no knowledge of what these people propose to do in regard to the conduct of the country's affairs and that they must just wait and see what emerges from the indeterminate situation which both Deputy Fitzpatrick and I agree this system is designed to bring about.
Apparently Deputy Fitzpatrick thinks that this is true democracy, that the people should not choose the Government but that the Government should be formed behind their backs after the election is over. We on this side of the House take a different view. We think the whole principle of democracy is that the people should be able to choose the Government. For this reason we propose that this system which is designed to prevent that should be changed for the one we are proposing and which would make it more likely that at election time people would be able to choose their Government and after the next election be able to hold that Government responsible for their actions, be able to relate the performance of the Government to the proposals they put before the people at the general election which returned them to office. Apparently Deputy Fitzpatrick is advocating that we should retain this system of election because it is likely to give rise to the type of Government that was described and favoured by the vice-Chairman of the Labour Party on a television programme last night when he visualised such a Government as a Government in which one section would be watching for the most suitable opportunity of pulling the rug from under the feet of the other section or sections who were colleagues of that particular Party in the Government.
At present the Coalition that is in the process of gestation comprises only two Parties and apparently it is envisaged there will be only one Party watching for the opportunity of pulling the rug from under the other Party's feet. Deputy Fitzpatrick visualises a situation in which all these unspecified minorities will have representation and therefore a situation in which whatever Government, if any, it is possible to form after the election will comprise a number of these groups bound, as the vice-Chairman of the Labour Party said last night, by no sense of loyalty to one another but instead watching for the opportunity to pull the rug from under their colleagues' feet.
It appears that if the situation which Deputy Fitzpatrick says is desirable does develop we will have quite an extensive amount of rug-pulling in whatever Government, if any, it is possible to form after the election. We know that at present at any rate there appears to be a desire in some quarters to form this Coalition openly before the election and apparently there is a desire in other quarters not to form it until after the election. In the circumstances that Deputy Fitzpatrick aspires to even this would not be possible because the groups would be too numerous for this arrangement to be made until they became aware of what the actual result was after the election.
Deputy Fitzpatrick went on to say that the change which was proposed would result in the creation of safe seats all over the country. I cannot understand how he can say that because it must be obvious that it is the present system which results in the creation of safe seats. It is obviously more difficult to win one seat in a single member constituency than it is to obtain one seat out of three, or one out of four, or one out of five. In a situation in which it is possible to scrape up third or fourth or tenth preference votes, which may later be transformed into full votes, all over a large constituency with the object of eventually arriving by this dubious means at what is described as a quota, it is much easier for a Deputy, who does not do his homework either as a legislator or as representative, to win a seat. It is, therefore, under the present system that safe seats are created and, in fact, exist. Some Deputies get safe seats on the basis of the votes given to their colleagues. It is quite obvious that this is, in fact, partly responsible for the narrow victory of the element in Fine Gael opposed to this proposition.
It must be obvious that under this present system, it is feasible for a Deputy not to do his work as a representative or as a legislator and yet to avoid the consequences of that neglect of duty at election time because of the widespread nature of the constituency and because he is required to get only the comparatively small amount of support, which is necessary under the present system, in order to retain this safe seat—a system which, as Deputy Fitzpatrick pointed out, exists nowhere else and exists here because it was imposed on us in the belief that it would bring about the situation Deputy Fitzpatrick actually believes desirable, a situation in which government would be impossible. These safe seats have been created under the present system. It is only very rarely that Deputies, because of their neglect of duty and falling from grace as a result of that neglect, find it advisable, as Deputy Lindsay said, to migrate to "fresh woods and pastures new."
Having, first of all, made his case for the present system of multi-member constituencies on the basis that this system gives representation to minority Parties, and having put that forward as the main justification for the continuance of the present system, Deputy Fitzpatrick then went on to point out that this system has not led to big Parties and actually holds this out also as an advantage under the present system. He wants to have it both ways. He holds out the fact that the system is designed to give representation to minorities which organise themselves on the basis of their minority interest as an advantage and he also holds out the fact that we have not got splinter groups represented here as an advantage also—two exact opposites.
Deputy Fitzpatrick asked me to give the reasons why we suggest the people should change their system of representation from multi-member to single-member constituencies. The purpose is to get rid of the many disadvantages and, indeed, the evils of multi-member constituencies. First of all, I regard the second of Deputy Fitzpatrick's points as being the desirable situation. It is not desirable that the people should be represented by a large number of small Parties because that type of representation effectively prevents the people from exercising their democratic right of choosing their own government. It must be admitted on the basis of the arguments put forward by Deputy Fitzpatrick that the system we propose of single-member constituencies is much more likely to give rise to election results which will make it feasible for a government to be formed with some prospect of lasting for a reasonable length of time; in other words, the system of single-member constituencies is more conducive to stability in government from election to election than is the present system, which is designed to bring about an indeterminate situation in which the only possible government is a government in which different sections will be always watching for an opportunity to pull the rug from under their colleagues' feet.
The present system—we all admit it now—is designed specifically to encourage the formation of small Parties. I do not think that is desirable. Instead, people should be encouraged to take a broad view of affairs, to try to appreciate the fact that in these modern times the interests of different sections are interdependent and that it is not in the long-term interests of any one section to ignore the interests of other sections. The people should be encouraged to form themselves into political Parties catering for the community as a whole rather than for narrow sectional interests. One of the main reasons, I think, for asking the people to accept this present system was because it was designed to create conditions in which they, the people, would be prevented from choosing their government. It is likely to result in inconclusive results. It has all the defects that a somewhat similar system has in other countries, though no system, as Deputy Fitzpatrick says, is as bad as the system we have here.
I quite appreciate the Opposition case; the present system makes it possible for a Coalition Government to be formed. They have been basing their case on the theory that the only possible alternative to the present Government is a Coalition Government and that because that is so and because this present system is more likely than the proposed system to bring about a situation in which such a Government can be formed after the election, therefore, it would not be fair to change this system.
In fact, I remember Deputy O'Higgins on Second Stage making the point that the people were entitled to choose a Coalition Government if they liked. Of course, nobody can deny that. The people are entitled to choose a Coalition Government if given the opportunity to choose it. The fact is that although we have had Coalition Governments here the people have never voted for a Coalition Government because prior to this we have never had even an attempt made publicly to form a Coalition before the election. Now there have been, at least, some indications that one, or that some, of the many sections of the Fine Gael Party, desire to form this Coalition before the election and there has been the usual well-known pretence of the Labour Party that they are not prepared to form a Coalition.