I gave private notice to the Minister that I proposed to raise a question with the object of enabling him to make a statement with authority with regard to the Army and polities. Those who read Sunday newspapers will probably have seen in the "Sunday Independent" a translation of a leading article which appeared in a weekly paper called the "Star." The paper is fairly well known in a general way to be expressing the views of the Party which constitute the Government, and it is credibly believed to be inspired, and its editorial policy directed if not written, by prominent members of the Executive Council. I am not asking that any member of the Executive Council in his individual capacity should refrain from going a little beyond what his membership of the Executive Council would require. In view of the important questions discussed in this article, and possibly, the unintentional meaning to be taken out of it, I think it is desirable the matter should be ventilated. The article was written in Irish, and a translation of portions of it appeared in this Sunday paper. I have had a separate translation made of the article and I think the greater part of it is sound doctrine, but the latter part seems to me to contain a kind of doctrine that has been treated as reprehensible and dangerous—first in respect of the Ulster Covenanting agitation, and, second, in respect of the agitation which Ministers fought so resolutely. The latter part of the article says:
The members of the Government are the servants of the people. If it were apparent that they were not obedient to the people, it would no longer be necessary that the Army should be obedient to them. An officer of the Army, speaking to the Cadet Corps in Galway University College a couple of weeks ago, said that if Fianna Fáil were to come into power and were to proceed to change the Constitution, the Army would have no business to interfere. In a way that was true. But if Fianna Fáil were to set about changing the Constitution against the will of the people, or if they were to set about reducing the Constitution to fragments, with a view to depriving the people of their supreme authority, it would be a different state of affairs, in our opinion.
In these circumstances the Fianna Fáil Government would be only a tyranny. There is no more important duty on a citizen than the preservation of our freedom and the smashing of any tyranny which is established. It is difficult to destroy a tyranny except with sword and rifle. If it should become a duty to destroy a tyranny in the Saorstát, it would be the duty of the soldier to move first, as he is best equipped for the work. Thus, the position is: Fianna Fáil has nothing to fear from the Army if they are good boys; but if they are bad boys, the Army will be highly dangerous to them.
It seems to me that the doctrine there is one which is quite definitely antagonistic to the sound doctrine which the Minister has so often preached himself regarding the Army. The Executive Council at any time, according to our Constitution, is set up by and is responsible to and may be removed by the Dáil. When the Executive Council ceases to command a majority in the Dáil it ceases to hold office, and in our method of Government the only test whereby one can judge whether a Government is doing the will of the people is the fact that it retains a majority in the Dáil.
If a Fianna Fáil Government is in office presumably it has the support of a majority of the Dáil. The suggestion here is that the Army may be the judge and that if it is not satisfied that the Dáil by holding in office a Fianna Fáil Government is fulfilling the will of the people then the Army may come in and destroy the tyranny. Therefore, it would seem incumbent on the Army, as such, to make itself conversant with the course of public policy and of the will of the people. If at any time it adjudged that the Government was not carrying out the will of the people, then it would be for the Army to step in. That is a doctrine that has been popular in some countries in recent years, but it is not the doctrine the Minister has latterly preached. In view of the circumstances of the publication of this article, and in view of the possibility that it will be taken as representing the views of the Ministry, or at least of influential elements in the Ministry, I thought it well the Minister should have an opportunity of stating with some precision what is the Executive Council's view of the duty of the Army in relation to the Executive Government.
According to the Defence Forces Act which we are now about to renew, the Executive Council is Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and its officers are bound by their oath and by law to obey the lawful commands of the Executive Council. It is surely not a good doctrine, and it is certainly not a constitutional doctrine, to preach that the Army should be judge of what is the will of the people, when there is a Parliament with an Executive responsible to it to determine what the will of the people is. Perhaps the Minister himself had a considerable amount of influence in persuading the Oireachtas a year or two ago to deprive the people of their right to a referendum, and is very much responsible for ensuring that this Oireachtas which represents the people is responsible for defining what the will of the people is. To preach any doctrine which might be interpreted as meaning that the Army is to be the judge of what the will of the people is, and that if it thinks the will of the people is not being carried out by the Executive Council for the time being, it is for the Army to step in and remove that Executive is surely a very reprehensible doctrine, and I hope the Minister will not give the slightest encouragement to it.
