It is not my intention to speak at any length. I propose to confine myself to the issue before the House, that is, the motion to deem the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill as having passed into law, notwithstanding its amendment and subsequent defeat in the Seanad by a small majority. There is also, of course, the amendment to the motion, that the subject matter of the Bill be referred to a joint committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas to examine and report upon its political, economic and social implications.
I propose to be relevant, so far as I can, to the motion and the amendment. It has been suggested, even as late as in this present debate, that this Government are seeking to bulldoze this measure through the Oireachtas. On a number of occasions I have asked in what respect this charge can be justified, since the Government are acting strictly within the spirit and the terms of the Constitution enacted by the people themselves. When the Constitution was enacted the people deliberately recognised the Dáil, its democratically elected House of Representatives, as the authority which would enact legislation for and on behalf of the people.
They also decided that a Second House should be set up but limited its authority. The Dáil is elected under the widest possible system of universal suffrage. The Seanad is elected under a certain democratic system but with very limited suffrage. It was for that reason, no doubt, that the people restricted the powers of the Seanad. The Dáil, which as I have said, is democratically elected, enacted this measure, again within the terms and the spirit of the Constitution, and sent it forward to the Seanad. The Seanad, having debated it at considerable length, in the first instance amended the Bill in such a manner as defeated the fundamental purpose of the Bill and then, inexplicably, threw out its own amended Bill—admittedly by only one vote. Nevertheless, under the terms of the Constitution the Bill comes back to the Dáil after the prescribed period and, within the tenets of the Constitution, the Dáil is now asked to regard this Bill as being deemed to have passed both Houses of the Oireachtas, notwithstanding the fact that it failed to secure the required majority in the Seanad.
I should like to ask again in what respect it is suggested that the Government are bulldozing this measure through. If they are bulldozing, the bulldozing is being done, in the first instance, in full accordance with the will of the people, as expressed by the majority who enacted the Constitution, and secondly, by the majority given to the Fianna Fáil Party so that they had sufficient seats in the House to claim an over-all majority. That is democracy exercised and implemented in its full sense and with its true purpose.
The amendment to the motion is another form of opposition and an attempt at delay, by the combined Opposition Parties, in bringing this measure to the people. The amendment seeks to set up a Joint Committee of the Dáil and Seanad to examine the implications—political, social and economic—that the measure might have. The justification for that, as put forward by the Opposition, is that the people at large should be given adequate opportunity to examine the seriousness of this measure. Nobody on this side of the House has in any way sought to minimise the seriousness of this measure. We have tried to present it to the people as something not only affecting their fundamental rights, but affecting their economic and political future in such a way that if they are to reject it, it may well prejudice these rights, the rights of the people to rule by majority and the economic future which they are entitled to expect from the guidance and the programme of a democratically elected Government.
We believe that since this measure was first mooted, in last October, and since it was first introduced in the Parliamentary manner for debate in the Oireachtas, sufficient thought has been given to it, not only by Deputies and Senators but by independent organisations throughout the country and by the people as a whole, to enable them to form a fair opinion of what the issue is that is being put before them. I fail to see in what manner a joint committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas could further enlighten the people in any way. All the documentation that bears upon the issue has been referred to and quoted at length in these Houses over the past six months; quoted at length at various symposia organised by some political Parties, by certain voluntary organisations and by debating societies. Due publicity has been given to any and every worthwhile contribution on the subject and I fail to see how any further research by a committee, such as that which the Opposition seeks to set up, can throw further light on what the people are being asked to decide.
I am not going to suggest that the setting up of this committee is a reflection on the capacity of the people to make up their minds but I think it would, in a certain respect, serve to conceal the issues and the pros and cons that have been thrashed out here in the open. We all know from our own experience the method by which commissions and committees entrusted with special tasks operate. Their deliberations are carried on largely in private. They seek evidence and submissions from outside individuals and bodies, and if possible, they come to an agreed recommendation, or a recommendation with reservations, or with some minority recommendations as well. All that is condensed in a form in which many people will have little or no opportunity of assessing the arguments put forward within that committee or commission for its agreement with recommendations, or with reservations, at the end of its deliberations.
Surely the best manner in which a subject of such public importance could be debated is to have it openly and publicly discussed, as it has been here over the past six months? I believe that nothing new can be brought into the arguments on one side or the other, especially after such a protracted period of debate both here and elsewhere.
These are the two issues before us —whether the Dáil will decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and deem this Bill to have passed both Houses of the Oireachtas, or whether it will agree to this amendment—which is a delaying amendment, which seeks to provide for the people knowledge which has been provided already in the most open and most democratic fashion possible.
Nevertheless, in case I may be accused of sidestepping what underlies the motion and the amendment we are discussing here today, I think I should refer in brief to the whole purpose of these debates in both Houses of the Oireachtas. The purpose is to change an electoral system which we have had since 1921, as put forward in the Government of Ireland Act of 1920. It is a form of proportional representation which, as far as I know, is peculiar to this country and one or two other territories in the world, one being Tasmania, I think. I forget the other country in which the system operates. It is an electoral system, and, as such, is an instrument of the people, whereby they can secure the election to Parliament of their representatives and whereby, through those representatives, they can get a Government with the power and authority to govern the affairs of the country for a reasonable period.
The system has worked well, reasonably well, in this country over that period, that is, over the past 37 or 38 years. For that reason, it is suggested to us that we should leave well enough alone. It, however, has been pointed out that there were certain factors, and one dominant factor, which enabled the system to work well here down through those years. That factor was the main division of political thought between our people which emerged as a result of the Civil War. It has been contended, and with some justification, that that dividing line will gradually become dimmed and blurred, with the result that the P.R. system will not tend to make for the stability in government which we, fortunately, have enjoyed over that period and which is likely to disappear now unless we revise our electoral system.
It is suggested that minorities may not get a fair show under the proposed alternative system. When we ask what form of minority the Opposition Parties refer to, they usually refer to a religious minority or to a minority which, even under P.R., disdained this House and adopted an attitude whereby they abrogated their right to forward their points of view here. The Labour Party does not regard itself as a minority. They feel they represent what they describe as the working classes of the country and which comprise by far the largest adult majority in the country. The fact is that these working classes prefer to be represented—to some extent, at any rate—by other of the existing Parties here. Therefore, to suggest that the Labour Party represents a minority is fallacious. I do not know what other minorities the Opposition Parties have in mind.
If the argument is that minorities must be represented, that we should have a system whereby every minority capable of securing what would amount to a quota of votes, would have a right to representation here— in other words, that we should have a truly proportional system of election —in order to bring that about, the country should be one constituency. Then, if the quota is about 7,500, a minority interest which can secure, from one end of the country to the other, that quota, should be entitled to representation here. I am sure most Deputies would not agree with that as a desirable system. Under it, there would be such a plethora of representation as to make reasoned and reasonable government impossible.
We suggest, therefore, that in order to assist the people to carry out the function to be achieved by an electoral system, we should give them the opportunity of deciding whether or not they adopt a simple form of election which will give reasonably stable and responsible government. Not only will such a system give reasonably stable and responsible government, but it will give a reasonable Opposition as well, an Opposition capable of forming an alternative Government.
It has been suggested that, if they make this change, the people will dilute their authority. I suggest it would strengthen their authority over changes of Government and strengthen their influence over their representatives. If a Government who have lost favour with the people put themselves forward in a succeeding election, I believe that, under the straight vote system, the people will have a more effective means of displacing that Government from power than they have at the present time.
Let us imagine a situation—as it might well develop—where, under the proportional representation system, there would be in this House on the Government side a combination of Parties, with another combination on the Opposition side. If the people decide to change the Government then, they will be in no way in a position to anticipate what form the alternative Government is to take. The alternative Government may take the form of some elements in the existing Government, with one or two accretions from the Opposition side. It might well be that the dominant influence in the alternative Government would comprise largely the dominant influence in the Government which the people have decided to get rid of. Therefore, from the point of view of making the electoral system a potent weapon in the hands of the electorate, I think the straight vote is the best means whereby that can be achieved.
Deputy O'Higgins, in his address last night, in so far as I heard it, made a reasoned and reasonable contribution. He said that we on this side of the House had abandoned our references to continental countries and our comparisons of what has developed in some of them with what might well develop here. I would not for a moment suggest that the conditions obtaining in many of these Continental countries are similar to those obtaining here; but I assert that the science of Government and the science of politics are largely the same in every country. The reactions of the people to situations will naturally differ. The reaction of the people of Holland and of Sweden, when in recent months they were for long periods without a Government, was such as to give time to the existing Parties to combine, to bargain, if you like, and ultimately to provide a Government; but there were definitely periods when those countries in recent times were without a Government. I believe that it would be a serious situation for us if that occurred here. That situation developed in those countries because of their proportional representation system.
Again, I would offer no apology for referring to the situation which developed in France, before the advent to power of General de Gaulle. The French Assembly alone had power to dissolve Parliament. The French Assembly was composed of various different Parties, and from them somebody had to form a Government, as those Governments fell in rapid succession. The French became prisoners of their own Parliamentary institutions. Until General de Gaulle came along and freed them from the shackles of those institutions, they were unable to form a reasonably stable Government that could bring together again the people of France in order to advance their economy.
There was a time shortly before General de Gaulle came to power when the officer in command in Algeria rang up the French Prime Minister for instructions as to what he might do in view of the fact that the hordes were marching on the headquarters of the Army. He was told there was no Prime Minister to give him instructions, but fortunately the particular general was able to act in a self-appointed, caretaker fashion until such time as M. Pflimlin was given some degree of authority which he in turn passed on to General de Gaulle and so avoided what would have been a very serious situation, not only for Algeria, but ultimately for France itself.
No matter how much we try to argue that conditions in these countries differ from ours, these are situations for which we cannot but have regard and situations which have been largely brought about by the electoral systems which are proportional in those countries and which I readily admit are not similar to the system we have had here for the past 37 or 38 years. Therefore, if during the course of the debate here, some members of our Party have not referred to the situation that has developed, and might well develop further, in continental countries, it is not because we have abandoned the argument as something that ought be borne in mind in considering our own electoral system.
Deputy Dillon argued very forcibly in favour of representation of minorities but did concede that in no way was he advocating government by minority. He himself had an unfortunate experience of that in recent years. The last inter-Party Government was composed of a certain number of Parties and we had one other Party, Clann na Poblachta, who declined to take part in the Government but decided to support it. They had three Deputies and when the 1956 economic crisis came, they were probably worried about their own political future and decided to give notice to the then inter-Party Government that they intended to withdraw their support. They did in fact withdraw their support, with the result that the then Taoiseach felt obliged to dissolve the Dáil and hold a general election.
That was the extreme example of government by minority, the extreme example of the tail wagging the dog. Such a situation might well have been created on a number of successive occasions under P.R. Were it not for the fact that the people had on that occasion and on the former occasion, when the Coalition Government broke up, a reasonable and unified Opposition to which to turn, the situation we seek to avoid by asking the people to change the electoral system might well have developed. If there were, instead of the unified Fianna Fáil Opposition, a combination of Parties such as comprised the Government, we might have had, and probably would have had, an embarrassing and dangerous succession of coalition Governments already.
It is for that reason we are asking the people now to face the issue in a realistic fashion, to examine the situation as it has been presented to them and, I would suggest, presented very exhaustively and effectively, and to decide whether they want to take advantage of this situation that might never again present itself to preserve a P.R. system or change to the single non-transferable vote and single member constituency.
If they approach the matter realistically, the people must realise that the issue is not only bound up with the existence or survival of political Parties but the existence and survival of the nation as an economic unit. Stability in government is one of the fundamental factors that will provide an economic future for this or any other country. I am convinced from my examination of the events that have taken place and of the possibilities of events taking place, that P.R. will foster a multiplicity of Parties that will inevitably lead to a succession of coalition Governments.
The straight vote will have the effect of providing a political Party with the opportunity of getting a sufficient majority to form a responsible Government, a Government with unity of purpose bound together by certain fundamentals and capable, out of their own deliberations, of forming and pursuing a policy which will give that degree of stability and which will be the foundation of the degree of economic progress we desire.
As I have said on a number of occasions, while this measure might appear, in the first instance, to be of some benefit to Fianna Fáil, it is not designed to preserve Fianna Fáil as such. I am one of those who came into Fianna Fáil many years after the civil war, who did not remember the wide differences or the fine differences that divided the people in the early 1920's but who having looked at the political scene objectively, decided that since I was entering politics, the policy and the programme adumbrated by Fianna Fáil was the one that approximated most closely to what I felt ought to be done by parliamentary means for the benefit of the Irish nation.
Everything Fianna Fáil have done has not met with my approval, any more than, I am sure, everything that other organised Parties have done has met with the approval of their individual members, but those of us who are in organised Parties are in them because they have certain ideals which have attracted us and which we hold dear, and as long as our Parties act within the framework of those ideals, they will continue to have our allegiance. Therefore, Fianna Fáil as such or any other political Party, is not, to the average thinking Deputy, anything sacrosanct.
The important thing is that a group of people who are motivated by ideals and who are bound together by fundamental principles will be able to present themselves as a political Party to the electorate. When a majority of the electorate seeking a government see in that political Party or organisation something desirable, it is only then such Parties and organisations have a right to exist. Under this system, no single Party can say whether, if the new system comes, it can maintain whatever measure of support it has now, but the fact is that the people will know what group or individuals they will support. They will know roughly what form the Government is likely to take and they will know with reasonable certainty, as they are entitled to know, who the leader of that Government is likely to be. These are facts which will appeal to the average citizen in his approach to the issue. These are fundamentals for which the average voter will have high regard when he comes to exercise his franchise on this occasion.
It has been suggested that we have no right to ask the people to decide this issue. Surely only a Government supported by a majority Party will be able to exercise that right? Nobody has a better right to make up their minds than the people themselves. No commission—no matter how widely representative—has the right to put forward a ready-made scheme for the people's acceptance that will have the approval of all the political Parties. It is far better that proportional representation, with all its virtues and weaknesses, and the straight vote, with all its faults and virtues, should be presented to the people to enable them to make up their minds whether or not to change this instrument of democracy, the electoral system we now have.
I want to ask again the question I have put to Fine Gael and the Labour Party on a number of occasions. They contend that under the present system different political Parties and groups will be represented in the Dail. It is reasonable to assume therefore that they support the idea of inter-Party or coalition government in the future. After the defeat of the last Government, one of the units supporting the Labour Party—the unit which I think is the dominating factor in Labour thought—decided that never again would Labour take part in a coalition with Fine Gael. If proportional representation is retained and Fine Gael and Labour are returned with a greater number of Deputies than Fianna Fáil or any other Parties, will they then combine and form a coalition or inter-Party Government or will Labour decide to adhere to the solemn decision already taken that they never again will combine with Fine Gael? In the context of this debate and of the issue before the people, that is a fair question to put. It is fair also to ask the people themselves to cogitate on whether they will deliberately create a position of uncertainly—perhaps uncertainty leading to chaos in the formation of a Government—by rejecting the straight vote and maintaining the present system which will bring about an unknown degree of stalemate in the formation of Government that should be avoided at all costs.