P.R. IN PRACTICE.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sia,—The examples of Ireland and .Germany, which you cite in your Notes on the 10th inst., by no means justify a conclu- sion adverse to Proportional Representation. Germany uses, it is true, a very harsh, rigid system of Proportional Represen- tation, in which the voter is thrust into one or other of the party folds without having the slightest voice in the personal selection of his representative. In spite of the obvious disad- vantages of the German method—which do not, however, attach to the principle of Proportional Representation—P.R. has had a political effect in Germany of the highest importance. It has saved moderate opinion from extinction, and prevented a violent oscillation of policy between the Right and the Left. It has been a steadying factor in politics where steadiness was an undoubted advantage,. both to Germany and to Europe.
In Northern Ireland members of the dominant party have never pretended any affection for P.R., nor were they per. suaded by argument to adopt this method of protecting the minorities in their midst. The system was introduced in Ulster by an Act of the Imperial Parliament, and the Ulster Unionist members have called public attention to the fact that they opposed P.R. in 1920, and voted against it. The few representatives of the Nationalist Party remaining in the Rouse of Commons at that time supported P.R., and resolu- tions demanding the retention of P.R. have lately been passed by the Nationalist and Labour minorities in Ulster. The reasons now put forward for abandoning P.R. are not very convincing, whilst, on the other hand, the abandonment of P.R. and the gerrymandering of constituencies in Tyrone and Fermanagh are likely to be a fruitful source of difficulty of a more serious kind. P.R. gave fair results ; its abolition is regarded as an abuse of power.
In Southern Ireland P.R. allayed the bitterness of the contest between the Free State Party and the Republicans. It did a valuable service in securing effective representation for the business interests, and for Labour and Agriculture. P.R undoubtedly helped thereby in bringing about a pacification of Southern Ireland. Under the single-member constituency system practically the only alternative to a Free State policy would have been Republicanism. At present, opposition to
the Government can express itself, constructively, in other directions.
Your Note concludes by urging the Referendum as a means of realizing democratic government. But the Referendum will break down unless Parliaments are made reasonably representative to start with. No advocates of the Referendum contemplate a situation in which many successive Bills passed by Parliament will be, on submission to the people, rejected. The Referendum is surely not a substitute for Parliament ; it is a corrective to possible misinterpretations by Parliament of public opinion. If its use were to show Parliament to be utterly unreliable, the authority of representative institutions would disappear. This would be a disaster. The Referendum and P.R. are complementary. Both desire that the will of the people should prevail. P.R. ensures this in large measure by making Parliament fairly representative ; with such a Parlia- ment the Referendum will work more smoothly.—! am, Sir, &c., dorm H. HUMPHREYS, Secretary
(The Proportional Representation Society).
82 Victoria Street (Flat 24), Westminster, London, S.W.1.
Previous page
