Mercenaries; well, a tank corps of the Fianna Fáil Party, essentially, will be dispersed through the length and breadth of the constituencies, each fighting for his own particular general to ensure in so far as the strength within him lies, that his own general will survive the holocaust, because if he does not survive, there is always the danger something else might go wrong and he might be more immediately affected himself.
You will have that situation at a general election, but by-elections, for reasons which are well known to us practising politicians, have become over the past decade or more increasingly scenes of invasion by the political panzers, and in a remote village in one constituency I recall speaking to a local publican in a hostelry which did not have about it the appearance of lasting prosperity, to say the least of it. He said to me that he thought there was nothing like a by-election and that every area in Ireland should have a by-election because it brought unprecedented wealth into every art and part of it—big spenders, particularly from the Government Party, expense no object, everybody treated, and it taken as an insult if everybody does not take a drink.
There is a good deal in what that man said, and it would be interesting to measure, if it were possible to do so, how much money is poured into a constituency. All that money is spent for one object. It comes from Government Party sources. It comes, I would imagine, from wealthy supporters of the Government in the main, and its object is to keep the Government in power. That will not apply at a time of a general election, because they will be spread all over the country. Therefore those of the Government Party who are facing the hangman, as it were, on this issue will find small solace in any reference to how well they have done in by-elections or will do in the future. By-elections are a notoriously bad indication of how things are liable to go.
As regards this moryah tolerance of 6,000 mentioned in the first Bill, this is disfranchisement; it is a stealing of votes from the Dublin people and the people in all built-up areas. I want to say to the Fianna Fáil people here in this House that if they vote for this— and I suppose they will for fear of the consequences if they do not; if they do not, there is always a danger they will not get the nomination the next time— what they are doing is tantamount to stealing a liberty, an existing right, from the people of this city, of this county, from the people of every city and county, every town where the maximum of this tolerance will be applied, whatever constituency it may be.
There is only one legislative comparison I can think of with this promotion of the Government, that is, the Act of Union. The Act of Union was pushed through as we know by every kind of device that could be evolved by corrupt men. The Act of Union was designed to settle in permanent power a minority and to leave in their hands the reins of government for all time. I cannot think of any other comparison than that with this proposal. The Government have the idea—and to my mind, the idea they have is false and is open to question—that if they can establish single-seat constituencies with the non-transferable vote, even though in most areas they will have a minority of the vote, they will still have a majority and a considerable majority of the Dáil seats. That is the whole purpose of the exercise.
Apart from the democratically undesirable development that a colossal majority such as we saw instanced on television would imply, apart form the fact, as has been remarked in the axiom of Lord Action, that all power corrupts, even the slightest bit of power has a corrupting influence, even on the strongest and best intentioned natures. It is not hard therefore to visualise what the effect would be on some of the inadequates who fill the Government seats here and the Cabinet posts in this House if that power were reinforced to the extent that their majority in the House was overwhelming.
It has been said that the Government could hope to win 90 of the seats—or something in that neighbourhood—out of the 144. I do not know whether or not that is true. I do not go along with people who set themselves up as psephologists in everything they say. Particularly I do not go along with everything they say about possibilities in Ireland, because there is an element which has to be dealt with in this country so far as votes are concerned which is intangible and immeasurable, that is, the Irish nature. While it may be true that there are certain patterns at certain times, unaccountable reasons, whims or vagaries, or good solid reasons, may cause considerable shifts, or small shifts, in areas, which can result in a complete turn about in a situation that might have seemed solid five years before, and solidly faced in that direction. You cannot measure that, and thank God, you cannot measure it. That is one of the things that make us different from other people. I suppose it is one of the attractions of the whole business of politics to those of us who engage in it, because it adds to the great uncertainty.
I am convinced that our people have an innate and natural ability to recognise the phoney, the phoney reasoning and insincerity, and that they will recognise, and have already recognised, that contrary to what has been publicly stated by the Fianna Fáil apologists on this matter, the simple fact is—and to them it is as plain as the noon day— that this is a power grab and nothing else, a power grab by a Party who fear their future if the present system is to continue. I wonder what conception of the people have the Fianna Fáil propagandists? I refer particularly to the Minister for Justice who said on television, I think, that the anxiety of the Government was to provide the country with an Opposition. What sort of people do you think we are? Does anyone think that anyone believes the Government are doing this in order to provide an Opposition?
That kind of statement by a Minister adds to the general cynicism we find abroad about politics. I am afraid there is a growing cynicism which is encouraged by the know-alls outside the House who apparently know all the answers about politics, but do not have to provide them, and do not mention them. It is the easiest thing in the world to outline what is wrong. We have heard it on television. There is the soft Saturday night question, but no hard Monday morning answers. The impact of this kind of suggestion that politicians are being deliberately and maliciously remiss is added to by the cynical exercise we see here which everyone recognises, and which is nothing more than an effort to hold on to power at all costs. The thinking is: "Well, sure, we might never have the chance again to change the rules. We cannot win the game under the rules. We will go out at the next election. We will not have a majority and we might never have the chance to change the rules again. What can we lose? Let us try it anyway." That is the thinking behind these two Bills.
I referred to this before and I hope the House will bear with me if I refer to it again. It has become something of a cliche but I think I was the first to refer in this House to the fact that in the hall the splendid literary document which is called the Proclamation of 1916 with its inspiring sentiments contains the phrase, "to cherish all the children of the nation equally". Is it cherishing all the children of the nation equally when you cancel out every third vote in the built-up areas in order to make three votes in Dublin equal to two, we will say in Connemara? Is that equality? To my mind, it is the very opposite.
I have no doubt whatever that it would never have occurred to the founding fathers of this State that we would even discuss such a thing as we are discussing here today. PR has been with us since the State was founded. I understand it was first introduced in 1918 in the town of Sligo in a local election there. It was operating in the local elections for the whole 32 counties of Ireland in 1920. Mr. de Valera's Party supported PR then. If I do not make a mistake without going back to dig up the references, he spoke outrightly and plainly—as plainly as it was possible for him to speak on any subject—in its favour. So far as one can read, he seemed to be in favour of it. Advisedly I will say no more than that. PR has done us for 50 years. It is not a perfect system. Is anything perfect in the world, anything? I know there are some politicians who think they themselves are perfection, but that kind of trouble is curable with tablets nowadays, I believe, or at least it can be kept under some kind of restraint. Humanity of its nature is imperfect. Therefore any system we evolve will not be perfect. I have never seen very much wrong with PR although it grieved me, when John Mannion headed the poll in Galway, to see him being defeated. On the other hand, in the same election, other people had reasons to be very thankful for PR because it elected them and that applied to the Fianna Fáil Party as much as any other.
PR gives to the individual the right to express his or her view in the fullest possible manner because he or she can indicate under PR how he or she will distribute his or her favour down the full length of the panel. It also has this, if you like, negative advantage, that if there is someone standing for election who the voter considers should be kept out at all cost—and this is an emotion that one can understand; there will be times and voters who will think that the election of any one of us is tantamount to a national disaster and we are bound to defend their right to hold that view so long as they do not act violently about it—he can only exercise his view to the full extent under PR by voting for everybody else on the ballot paper and in that way using his vote against the undesirable. The single non-transferable vote can very easily mean that the vast majority of the electorate in a constituency are not represented at all.
I think it would be useful, to run over the arguments which are mentioned in the report of the Committee on the Constitution and which were adduced against making the change at the time this question was under discussion, the question of the single seat constituency. Yesterday, the Minister for Industry and Commerce in dealing with some inquiry regarding electroal matters referred to the propriety—he described it as the somewhat questionable properiety—of a member of that Committee revealing in any way what the views of any other member had been, or commenting on those views. My recollection of the final meeting of the Committee which dealt with the particular matters contained in this report—but which was not to be the final meeting of the Committee per se—was that the matter was free for discussion in a political manner, once the report had been published. That is not to say that I propose to discuss at all the views of any individuals on that Committee but I do not think the Minister need have taken such umbrage as he did when others might feel—and would be quite entitled to feel—that they would be entitled——
