By Montesquieu. The proposal which is now before the Dáil is that the people should be asked to agree that the method as now prescribed by the Constitution for determining the result of their suffrages shall be changed. This is, as the Leader of the Opposition informed us, a debate of the utmost gravity. Why do those who think otherwise in regard to this matter not argue their case on its merits? It is not that they regard our present method of election as being perfect, or even good. In this debate, Deputy J.A. Costello, the Leader of the Opposition, has been at pains to make himself clear on that aspect of the matter. As reported at column 1011 of Volume 171 of the Official Report, he said:—
"I have always had a conviction that there are defects, perhaps serious defects, in the rules governing the operation of elections under that system. I tried to find out where those rules came from and it is not, to say the least of it, very easy."
Later, as reported in column 1016, he went on to say that he was positive that "the system is capable of improvement" and indicated that such improvement is at least desirable in order to give additional strength and stability to governments formed under it.
Some years ago—then, as now, in oppositive—Deputy Costello was even more precise in indicating a few of the weaknesses of P.R. He held at that time that P.R., though on paper a perfect system, is in practice quite the opposite. In particular he emphasised how it breeds disorder and dissension in Parliament. He told us how this evil was, in his opinion, "inherent in any"—note that word "any"—"in any system of P.R."
Amplifying this statement, he then went on to say, as reported in Volume 68, column 1345:—
"Under the system of the single transferable vote we are bound to have a large number of Parties returned..."
He was then speaking for the people who are sitting opposite, his colleagues to-day, and for himself of course.
"We always understood that the real defect under any system of P.R. and particularly the system of the single transferable vote, was that it led, in circumstances where there are no big economic issues before the country, to a large number of small Parties being returned, making for instability in government. That is inherent in the system of P.R. and the single transferable vote."
Consider now the views of Deputy Dillon. He also, like Deputy Costello, does not think much of the present system, the one the Opposition is now fighting to preserve. In his speech last Wednesday, he referred to it as a fraud and told us that it is debauched. Eleven years ago, he told the Dáil much the same thing when he said, at column 1714 of Volume 108:—
"Personally, I think P.R. is a fraud and a cod, and that it ought to be abolished. I believe in the single member constituency, with the transferable vote, so that the man who gets the support of the largest number of people living in the constituency will represent the constituency. The constituency should be of a size to enable the T.D. to familiarise himself with all its problems."
At that time, eleven years ago, Deputy Dillon wanted single member constituencies. Last week, however, we heard him arguing for bigger and bigger and bigger constituencies, following, perhaps, in the train of Deputy Esmonde, who wanted the whole country to be one constituency and P.R. carried to its uttermost limits.
However, to get back to Deputy Dillon:—
"Under that system you would get a clear majority in this House, with a good strong Government and with no doubts about it after a general election. The rag-tag Constitution——"
Remember, that reference is to the Constitution which they are now fighting to preserve inviolate—
"——that we have provides for P.R. I suppose that, until we can change that, we have got to abide this as well as the many other evils that have been foisted upon us."
Mark, "until we can change that." We are being opposed by Deputy Dillon when trying to change it now. Thus, however, the superman of Fine Gael addressed himself with characteristic dignity and restraint to this grave issue.
One does not want to weary the House in dredging up the past, but it would not be fair to the junior members among us to fail to let them know what the present professor of constitutional law in University College, Dublin, and a former Attorney General, Deputy McGilligan, has said about our present system of election. He is reported in Volume 67, column 1070 of the Official Report as follows:—
"It was always held that with regard to P.R. which this country adopted, we had adopted the worst possible system."
I can sum up then and say that it is fair to state that the Leader of Fine Gael is extremely dubious about the merits and advantages of P.R. He is in no doubt whatsoever that it breeds a multiplicity of Parties and makes for instability in government. He tells us, indeed, that these evils are "inherent in the system of P.R. and the single transferable vote." Moreover, on the matter of P.R. constituencies, his views are in marked contrast to those held by his colleague, Deputy Dillon.
Deputy Dillon has something, though an illogical something, to say in favour of P.R. He said it was a fraud and a cod ten years ago, but to-day he has something to say in favour of P.R., with, however, seven seat constituencies. Whereas Deputy Costello is on record as saying that: "In practice, the fact of having a big constituency is nullifying P.R. completely."
On the general question, however, of the merits or demerits of the system, Deputy Dillon has expressed himself much more emphatically than his leader. According to him "P.R. is a fraud and a cod and ought to be abolished." It is, he has declared, "the child of the brains of all the cranks in creation." So far as this country is concerned, "it was tried out on the dog." Deputy Esmonde does not agree with that but, after all, who expects one member of the Fine Gael Party to agree with another? "It was foisted upon us," said Deputy Dillon, "by a collection of half-lunatics"—they are now standing up for it—"who believed that they had something lovely that would work on paper like a jig-saw puzzle." And, finally, Deputy McGilligan admits that it is generally held that the system of P.R. which obtains here is the worst possible.
Now, in the light of all this, is it not deplorable that when the Government propose that the people should be given an opportunity to decide whether or not this system, which is so generally condemned, should be changed, the spokesmen for Fine Gael, in particular, and the Leader of the Labour Party, personally, should overwhelm us with vituperation? Is it not inexcusable that my predecessor as Minister for Health, Deputy T.F. O'Higgins, should go so far as to threaten civil disorder, even perhaps civil war, if the people venture to change this worst of all possible systems of election? In the light of the speeches which we have heard, with the solitary exception, perhaps, of Deputy Costello, in part, and of Deputy Sir Anthony Esmonde, is it not reasonable to ask ourselves if reason has not foresaken the Opposition?
Speaking a few nights ago, outside this House, the Leader of the Opposition tried to induce the people in this country to believe that in this matter we are taking a leap in the dark. But are we? My contention is that we are not. P.R. has been tried in many countries. Except in very exceptional circumstances, it has failed in most of them to produce stable and effective Governments and consistent public policies. The system has been critically examined by eminent students of political science and of constitutional organisms and it has been condemned by them all. There is scarcely any public procedure that has been so closely studied as election by P.R. It is not for want of experiment and adaptation and modification to eliminate its manifold evils that the system everywhere failed to satisfy the requirements of the public interest and I make no exception to that rule.
If the system is in operation in certain countries to-day, as admittedly it is, it is only because there have been built up around it many selfish, sectional interests whose advantage it is to maintain it. It is only when the people have become desperate under it, as recently in France; or when a dictator overthrows the parliamentary régime whose foundations it has rotted, as in Germany or Italy; or when there is a Government strong enough to overbear the vested interests, and to submit the matter to the people, as is now being done in this country, that P.R., once introduced, can be abolished.
The Government are not asking the people to leap in the dark in this matter. Many examples of the ghastly experiences of other countries under P.R. have illuminated the public mind and have now brought home to our people—I believe to the majority of our people—how closely the welfare and security of our Republic is bound up with the abolition of P.R.
In this debate, the general opinion outside is that the honours have been with those who are supporting the Government's proposal. They have been with them because those who want to get rid of the system have been able to support their case by the citation of historical facts, facts which, because they are within the recent knowledge of all of us here, cannot be denied.
Against these facts the Opposition, I regret to have to say it, have had little to offer but personal abuse and undignified vituperation.
In his telling speech in support of the Amending Bill, Deputy Booth a few days ago gave a general review of the history and fatal consequences of P.R. in most of the post-1918 democracies. Notwithstanding this, I shall venture to refer to some of them again and to quote the judgments of some political leaders who lived through and were at the heart of the events which led to the destruction of the democracies which they themselves had helped to establish. I shall take Germany first. I must summarise briefly the events which led to the establishment of the Weimar Republic by reminding the House that after the abdication and flight in 1918 of the then German Emperor and the collapse of the German Empire, the great parties, the Catholic or Centre Party, the Liberals or German Democrats, and the Socialists or Social Democrats, having defeated all attempts to bolshevise Germany, cooperated together to establish the first German Federal Republic, the Weimar Republic as it was popularly known.
Among those who played a leading part in these events was Erich Koch-Weser, a Liberal who in the Federal Government was Minister for the Interior in 1919-21, and later, in 1928-29, was Minister for Justice—a man, therefore, who could speak with knowledge and authority. In his book, Hitler and Beyond, he has given this picture of the political scene from 1920 to the advent of Hitler as German Chancellor:—
"From this time on there were frequent changes of government in Germany. Now there were minority governments that could be toppled at any moment, now majority governments that disintegrated because the members could not agree among themselves."
The first Coalition Government here of 1948-51!
"The parties felt at ease neither in the opposition, where they were without any influence, nor in the government, where they were unable to accomplish all they wanted. There was constant horse-trading. The picture was continually changing. Sometimes the German People's Party, consisting of the upper middle classes, took part in the government, though reluctantly and with an air of suspicion, and then there was either a government of the moderate parties, or if the Social Democrats joined, a so-called grand coalition. Now there was a minority left-wing government, and now the Social Democrats withdrew ill-humoredly because things were taking too much of a turn to the right to suit them. Then again the right-wing German Nationals had to be included, but never felt at ease in the Government for any length of time and resigned whenever any important decisions had to be made about foreign affairs. The Catholics and the German Democrats almost always bore the burden of unpopular government policies, and the German Democrats in particular thus forfeited votes. The republic came into ill-repute through long-drawn-out negotiations concerning the make-up of the government and through its instability."
The party history of these years proved that the German people were too much divided about politics, religion, economics, and social and cultural questions to send substantial majorities to the Reichstag. The system of P.R. only increased the evils of the situation. It had been claimed that P.R. in the Reichstag would afford a mirror of public opinion. But actually it shattered the mirror into splinters that could not be used for government purposes. To the very end of the republic there was always the difficulty; later even the impossibility, of forming substantial majorities. Too frequent turnover in the government was largely to blame for the fumbling conduct of affairs of state and for the people's disappointment in it."
The account which I have just read was set down by a German Liberal.
