One of the difficulties about the discussion on this issue is that, for one reason or another, political Parties and politicians have over the years become so suspect in the arguments they advance that people tend to think that, no matter what is said, or by whom, it is not being said completely objectively and in a detached way. Each of us puts his own point of view, and each of us puts that view for his own personal or Party advantage. The result of that is, after 20 or 30 years' experience—and everybody here is partly responsible for it— this very important debate has been carried on over the past few months in an atmosphere in which there is a large measure of discredit of our political figures, resulting, in turn, in an inability on the part of the man in the street to assess the truth.
I listened to the debate and I read the debate in the Seanad from the point of view of ascertaining the truth. It happens to have been a very reasonable debate, and the case for and against put by both sides was put with reasonable tact and in an objective manner. Unfortunately, with the reputation that the politicians have acquired over the years, people do not accept the point of view that this happens to be one reasonable and objective debate which was carried out in a serious manner by both sides of the House, in an attempt to find the truth of the desirability of changing the electoral system.
One speaker said something about a measure of uncertainty or disquiet among the people. I do not think they clearly understand the full issues involved. It was only by being here in the Dáil, to the extent that I could be here in the past few months, that I myself was able to come to grips with the very complicated problems involved in this whole question of the voting system. The people have not had that advantage to anything like the same extent and, consequently, they are groping rather blindly to find the truth as to whether or not it is wise for them to agree to change the voting system they know. I have talked as widely as I could with many people and I found a certain air of uncertainty or disquietude that something was not quite as it should be; they did not completely believe either side; they felt the case for the need for a change has not been made really convincingly. I honestly do not believe that the case put forward by the Opposition speakers has been met from the Government benches.
Possibly the most important point put forward was on the question of democracy: is it likely to be the most democratic form of electing the legislative assembly? Is it likely to be a more democratic way than the way we have now? Of course, that is the essence of the whole problem. If it is, then definitely it would be wiser to change the system. An attempt was made to put forward the case that we would have a more efficient type of government, or that we would get better social amenities and a greater measure of prosperity, but all these are, I think, irrelevancies which have been introduced from time to time, and they cannot weigh in the discussion as to which is the most desirable voting system from the purely democratic point of view.
If we want the most efficient form of government, simply from the point of view of the most efficient machinery and method of government, then some of us would think of dictatorships. Dictatorships like Fascism or Communism have shown themselves to be, in many respects, very much more efficient—if that is what you are looking for—than our rather slow and difficult-to-operate system. Yet I think most people will agree, in spite of all our complaints, that our own is a wonderful system of government— a democratic assembly, with the debates we have here, and our right to ask questions and receive answers. We might get more efficient forms of government if we agreed to vitiate or weaken in some way, any of the underlying democratic motifs of our electoral system, but I do not think any of us really want efficiency at that price. Most of us would like to preserve, in so far as we can, the measure of democracy we have achieved over past years.
Questions have been put and the main question of one speaker was about the 60/40 proportion in the election of a Deputy where 40 per cent. would elect the Deputy and 60 per cent. would be effectively unrepresented. I do not think that question has been honestly or effectively answered by anybody on either side. The corollary to that is that a Government elected in the same way could be, in fact, a minority and the minority would effectively be the Government. Clearly, that is the antithesis of true democracy. Certainly it is not the democracy we have achieved under P.R., with all its failings and all its curious anomalies. Broadly speaking, we have succeeded in getting a higher measure of democracy than has been achieved under the direct vote, the British system, or—let us call it its electoral name—the straight vote. It would be absurd if we were to blame P.R., for instance, for the failure of our social and economic system. I hope nobody would seriously suggest it has anything to do with it. I do not believe it has. Those are particular weaknesses and have little or nothing to do with the electoral system.
The evolution of the whole idea was so odd that I think it was that curious evolution which has led to the disquiet I spoke of, rather than arguments put forward here—the disquiet in the minds of the people that something is being done which they do not fully and completely understand, which they think is slightly shady, or undesirable, or has something wrong about it.
There is the fact that this originated from above rather than from below. It appears to have originated in that way. At any rate, the stage-managing was not as good as it usually is. It originated from an individual and then it carried right down through to the democratic Ard Fheis of a Party. I think the job could have been done a little better. It would have been wiser to have had a resolution at the Ard Fheis passed by the Executive, and eventually translated into action by the Government. If this proposition had originated, as was suggested by some members of the Government, from a desire amongst the ordinary rank and file of the Party for this radical fundamental, and very important change, it seems to me that a more convincing way for the whole matter to have evolved would have been the way I have suggested.
There should have been the insistent demand from the Cumainn to the Ard Fheis, the willingness of the Ard Fheis to comply, the acceptance by the Executive, and then an agreed Taoiseach's decision. Instead of that, we had the curious business of a Press conference at which the idea leaked out. It is said that this will depend on the Cabinet. The Cabinet then considers and accepts it and it is stated that it then depends on the acceptance of the Ard Fheis, and it is accepted by acclamation at the Ard Fheis. I think that is rather clumsy and it has had the effect—he may be right or he may be wrong—of convincing the people that it did not originate amongst themselves, that it originated from an individual who wants to put a particular idea across. There is this feeling that it is being put across as something that comes from above rather than from below.
This at best epitomises the whole democratic centralist idea of Government and I think epitomises Government policy from Government benches over a number of years. At best I think it has been very much a question of individual decisions, the originators trying to get Cabinet decisions and getting acceptance from a political Party and electorate, so that the whole democratic centralist type is the antithesis of the idea of democratic Government which normally we have here. Because of that I think there is this certain suspicion, and certain lack of acceptance of the idea of an individual that he can change, at will, this very important aspect of our Government—the form of election.
I think the Taoiseach could certainly have got away with it 20 years ago, but I do not think it is quite so likely that he will romp home with it now. To be quite candid, I do not know how the referendum is going to go. There is a great uncertainty about it but I do not think he is likely to get away with it as easily as he might have done ten or fifteen years ago.
One of the rather more sinister aspects of the whole question is the way this has been stage-managed. I suggest one part of it is extremely clumsy and I think that has come through to the people. They realise that it is not their wish translated into political action in Leinster House. It is quite a different thing. It is the personal decision of the Taoiseach translated down to them, and the rather sinister aspect is the fact that it is being put forward as a single issue. It is a terribly complicated issue. Most of us tried to cover it with arguments for and against and I think most of us, on certain parts, were slightly uncertain. We found difficulty in trying to equate our own views with the arguments put forward and we tried to fight our own corner, with our own views, but I think that the confusion of the two issues is one of the most sinister aspects of the whole question and is the most disturbing part of it.
First of all, this is a question which could be debated for 20 years. It is a question upon which the Taoiseach made his decision after very deliberate consideration. He decided that was the best form of electoral system that could be devised. That point has been made very many times, and I do not intend to go into all the arguments put forward. Admittedly, a man has a right to change his mind. I think he has a moral right to change his mind in the light of convincing argument but it does make him susceptible, in the ordinary rule, of being rather less infallible if he sets himself up as a kind of repository of truth and right. It does rather undermine that position.
I think a humble man faced with the challenge, the most convincing challenge of counter argument and counter suggestion—reasonably objective some of it, some of it political but reasonably objective in some cases—knowing that on one occasion he made, in his present viewpoint, an outstanding blunder on this question, and lacking any real enthusiasm amongst his own supporters in the back benches, would be agreeable to accept some sort of half-way house to the whole question of the decision to have this presented. I think the half-way house suggested in this motion is reasonable, and that it was made particularly reasonable by not setting up a commission, because that is one of the most ancient devices known to democratic Government for long-fingering matters. The Taoiseach himself has used it many times and so has practically every Leader of every Government when he did not want to deal with any particular problem.
If the Taoiseach had been asked to set up such a commission he would not, I think, have accepted it, but here he is given a fair suggestion to provide that it should report back within a specific limited period. Because of that the Taoiseach, if he is the democrat that many believe he is, loses nothing, and at the end of that time his case is put to the people. They are allowed to consider it and decide on it within a reasonably short period. Why should the Taoiseach not allow this to happen? Why will he not accept this perfectly reasonable request?
He has himself said, in answer to a question of mine, that it would be most undesirable to have these two elections, the Presidential election and the P.R. referendum, on the same day. He is now being facilitated by the Opposition. Even though he may not be there himself to push this thing through he will see his referendum carried, and he will get a decision for or against his proposition within a reasonable period. His refusal to accept that suggestion, coupled with his own statement that it was most undesirable these two issues should be confused, has certainly added to my own disquiet, in the consideration of the desirability as to whether this referendum should be held at the same time as a Presidential election. I believe this is the device whereby the Taoiseach intends to defeat ordinary democratic processes. I think it is a reasonably clever device and a device which is likely to be very effective.
The Government have been in office for some two years and this is a very important question. If the Taoiseach believes that there should not be confusion between these two issues, in order that there should be no confusion in the people's minds, and in order to give them the best possible chance of coming to a wise decision—because the whole future of the country depends on that decision—he should see that these two issues are separated. If the Taoiseach were genuinely interested in getting a straight decision, an uncomplicated, unconfused decision from the people on this terribly important issue, if his sole interest were in the rights and wrongs of this question and in the genuine beliefs of the people on this question, he would take every possible step, and grasp every possible opportunity to make sure that the two were widely separated and that the people were given a fair chance to decide this very complex question.
Because he has refused to accept this motion it seems to me that he is determined deliberately to try to confuse the issue and to interfere with normal democratic practice by bringing in the very weighty, very emotional, very powerful and sentimental side issue of his retirement from public life. We all know the likely date of the Presidential election. We all knew of the new electoral lists and broadly speaking we knew how long a debate on a matter of such importance as this was likely to take, but only one person could answer the very vital question as to whether the Taoiseach would stand for the Presidential election on the same date as that on which the referendum was likely to be held. Only one person knew that—the Taoiseach himself.
Having all these facts at his disposal, and knowing that he had decided to leave public life and go for the Presidency—and I think he will be elected—I think the whole mechanism and process of this decision was very carefully thought out. The decision to cloud the issue, in the way in which quite definitely it will be clouded, was, I think, a very deliberate one. It was a retrograde decision and one which is likely to be considered by history as a very shameful one, in so far as it was the considered decision of a practised politician, who clearly understood its implications, to secure a large measure of public support for a most important, vital and fundamental issue of electoral policy, by going forward himself and getting support for this electoral change on the plea of sentiment or emotion, or whatever other personal issues will inevitably arise in the Presidential election.
As I said, I do not think that the case has been answered, particularly the case in regard to the democratic issue. I believe that the motives behind the decision of the Taoiseach have been made fairly clear by most speakers. The Taoiseach says that he dislikes coalitions and, because of his dislike, he is attempting to see that there shall never be a recurrence of coalitions. I am no lover of coalitions either but, at the same time, if the people want coalitions they should be allowed to have them. If they want two or three or more coalitions they should be allowed to have them and if they choose coalitions instead of single Party Government surely it is for the simple reason that they think that is a better form of Government. They may be wrong but clearly single-Party Government must have given them reason to think that multiple-Party Government was better. For that reason they should have their choice.
It seems to me that the Taoiseach feels that the time has come when there is very little difference between the major political Parties. Of course there is very little difference between the major political Parties. They are both conservative. The Taoiseach himself has said so. I have no objection to that at all. I wish that they would see the evil of their ways but that is their affair. Surely the Taoiseach will agree that if a Party of a point of view other than the conservative point of view wants to make itself felt, it should not be in the position where it is effectively outlawed by the electoral system.
So long as the politicians put forward their point of view, no matter what that point of view may be, and observe the democratic ritual, surely they should be allowed to stand for election to the Dáil, to speak and try to secure support for their Party. The Taoiseach has said that he believes a minority point of view would be used by individuals to win positions in Coalition Cabinets. He says, at the same time, that he does not think that these people should be allowed to come into politics, that the two major Parties should be able to take over—one in Government and one in Opposition—and they should go on living happily ever after.
These two major Parties are conservative and I, for instance, happen to be a Socialist. There is no Socialist Party in this House. Should I not be allowed to come into the Dáil and fight my corner and eventually try to persuade more and more Deputies and more and more individuals in the country to a Socialist point of view, which is the popular one in many parts of the world? It is only here in this country that there is an exception. Should an electoral system be so devised as to outlaw our Party, in effect, to make it impossible for it to put its policy before the people?
There is another very important point, and I wonder that it did not occur to the Taoiseach, if he is going to end Partition or feels there should be an end to it. There is a very considerable Socialist Party in the Six Counties; they hope they will be able to grow in size and eventually form a Government. Would it not militate against a United Ireland, if those Socialists in the Six Counties, facing the electoral system down here devised by the Taoiseach, decide that there are circumstances which make it impossible for them to build up their strength, or even to exist at all?
One of the greatest advantages of P.R. appears to be that the minorities have been able to come into public life here and the edges have been worn off the great bitternesses of the past. Apart from bitterness on emotional issues, there is the bitterness to come, I think, in the conflict on ideological issues. In those circumstances, it would probably be much wiser for the Government to retain P.R., in order that there may not be very violent clashes, which would seem to be inevitable under the direct vote system. One of the points which appeal to me is that, under the direct vote, circumstances may allow the point of view which I represent—no matter what happens to me—to succeed. If some Party succeeds in putting forward the democratic Socialist point of view and maintaining and developing it, a time could come, under the Taoiseach's proposed system, when that Socialist view could be imposed on the other portions of the people. That would mean nationalisation, co-operation, nationalised health services and university education, and such things which are found in a welfare society. They could be imposed on a majority of the electorate by a minority. That is the only case for the change which appeals to me.
On the other hand, as a democrat, I still believe that the retention of the present system will cause less violent change and will probably mean wiser and healthier politics here. A landslide is nearly inseparable from the direct vote, or at least it is commonly associated with it, resulting in a swing from extreme Right to extreme Left. Fianna Fáil Deputies would not like to see that happening.
In a united Ireland, under the proposed system, Socialists would find it very difficult to survive, but it is possible that if we did succeed, the changes would be very rapid under the direct vote. We recollect the remarkable insurgence of Clann na Poblachta in 1948. Even though there was a swing towards Clann Poblachta in that year, it had a very tiny effect in the end. Under the direct vote, Clann na Poblachta might have formed a Government.
The Taoiseach has not answered these questions. He suggests that the members of the Opposition should sink there differences; and this clash with his repeated condemnation of the idea that those who form Coalitions could ever live and work together. He says they should work together and then he wants to get rid of the electoral system which would let them do so. That seems to be the height of illogicality. He does not want Opposition Parties to come together. His objections are based mainly on the experience of 1948. It is an irrational dislike. We are coming into a period of great change, the end of an epoch of political thought stemming from the Civil War.
There must be a reconsideration by most of us, in each generation, of the wiser policies for Ireland in the next 10 to 40 years. None of us has a monopoly of wisdom. It is clear that we must go through a period of transition, in which various policies will be bruited about and analysed so that they may be pared to meet our own whims and fancies. It would be reasonable, therefore, to have a period in which there might be a number of Coalition Governments. It would be a period of relative instability, relative in the light of the extraordinary stability which has marked our political life in the last 35 years under P.R. We could go through a period of relative instability but that would be no harm as long as we were able to work out our agreed points of view, agreeing to differ where we could not get approval for our point of view, and in time evolve the normal political development which was so regrettably frustrated by the Civil War.
It is wrong for the Taoiseach to take any step which might prevent the evolution of a new political idea, whatever idea that may be. He himself at one time welcomed P.R. because it allowed him to come into the Dáil and build up his organisation according to his idea. I hope there will be other new political ideas coming forward because we need them very badly. Why should the Taoiseach in the closing years of his public service take this decision, to try to reach back into our time and impose his will from his retirement? It seems to me a reprehensible decision. Some of us will have to work this system when the Taoiseach is in the background, and it is very improper for him to try to impose this system at this late stage.
The Taoiseach is, no doubt, firmly convinced of the wisdom of his political, social and economic views. In the event, they do not appear to me to have been particularly wonderful, but, leaving that aside, he should be prepared to permit alternative points of view to be put forward and give every facility for their evolution. This is imperative in view of our political evolution in the past 30 or 40 years, in view of the very difficult circumstances of our country and the terrible dangers democracy is facing in almost every country in the world, the disrespect which many people have for deliberative assemblies, whether in our own country, France, Italy or anywhere else. Democracy is going through a period at the end of which it might, as we know it, disappear altogether. I should greatly regret anything that would speed that.
The case made against the setting up of a commission is absurd. What is wrong with a commission sitting, particularly when there is a proviso that it shall report within a very limited period? One of the most important of the Taoiseach's political beliefs is in regard to the language revival which has been entrusted to a commission. Commissions have considered the banking position here, vocational education, youth unemployment and emigration. All the great issues of our time have been considered by these commissions at one time or another and they have provided us with some useful information. We do not always accept their recommendations, but they have been of great benefit. There is a provision here that this commission should not sit endlessly, but should produce a report within a reasonable period.
I have been favoured with a copy of the literature in relation to the coming referendum. The arguments put forward are most misleading, arguments which the Taoiseach should reconsider in the light of the points made by the different speakers. It is wrong for the Taoiseach deliberately to mislead the public on the very important issues involved.
There is the extraordinarily patronising, supercilious suggestion in this literature that we should have a system of election to the Dáil that the people can understand. To talk like that to an electorate which has returned a Government, the Taoiseach's Government, more often than any other Government has been returned is extraordinarily tactless. Unkind people might say that is why they have continued to return the Taoiseach. However, I do not think so. They have understood and used the P.R. system extraordinarily well. I have criticised the educational system here on many occasions and it would be a biting indictment of the policy in relation to our educational system over the years, if the people do not understand an electoral system which they have used for 30 or 40 years.
There are some suggestions here which are untrue. There is the general statement that coalitions are bad government. Our experience has proved it but it is not true to this extent that probably the finest record of stability in the history of democratic government is held by Swedish Governments. The remarkable level of social justice and prosperity there and the reasonably stable Governments over a number of years would seem to completely refute the suggestion that all coalitions are necessarily bad Governments.
Switzerland has had multi-Party Governments. Admittedly, this tiny country has an economy relatively easy to organise but at the same time, it has had a reasonably stable system of Government, and from the point of view of social and economic development a perfectly efficient administration. Over a number of years the Swiss people have shown themselves satisfied with it. Of course, the truth is that some coalitions are bad and some are good. But it has relatively little or nothing to do with the system of election. You get bad Governments under either type of election.
The literature goes on to say that the straight vote compels a Government to act in accordance with the majority of public opinion. That is not true, as most people have pointed out. In ten British general elections, under the British system, only two Governments have been Governments backed by more than half the votes. It seems to me that the suggestion that the British system of election will necessarily compel Governments to act in accordance with the majority of public opinion is simply not true. It has been shown to result in the election of those commanding 40 per cent. of the votes, leaving 60 per cent. without representation.
It says also that where the straight vote has been retained, democracy has never been challenged. There is a straight vote in Spain and in Portugal, and certainly there is no democracy there. There is another point made, that in every country in the world P.R. has meant coalition Governments in which the small minorities can dictate policy. Is that true? First of all, we all know that minorities under the direct vote, under the British system, can elect a candidate in a constituency and that you can have a minority Government. So that you can get a repetition of that phrase that in every country in the world P.R. has meant coalition Governments in which small minorities can dictate policy? In every country in the world the direct vote can mean that the smallest minority can dictate policy.
