CORRESPONDENCE

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 83, 8 April 1938, Page 10

CORRESPONDENCE

PARTY OR NATIONAL?

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—May I suggest to "F.N.R." and your other correspondents that the best solution of their problem is to be found, not in a "National" Party Government, nor in any other party Government, but in a truly National Government. To arrive at such a Government, it is necessary, in the first place, to elect, by means of proportional representation, a Parliament that truly represents the people—a Parliament in which each school of political thought is represented in true proportion to its voting strength in the country. Then that Parliament should in its turn elect the Executive, or Cabinet, from the Prime Minister downwards; so that the Executive would truly represent and be really responsible to Parliament. Under this system the Executive, in bringing down any measure, would simply be carrying out the will of the House; and no matter what happened to the measure the life of the Government would never be in question for a moment; so that no member could be compelled to vote against his election pledges to prevent his party being turned out and the other side getting on to the Treasury benches. Thus, as "F.N.R." desires, each and every member would be directly and unmistakably responsible* jto his constituents, and to them alone.

Sir Esme Howard (now Lord Howard of Penrith), formerly British Ambassador to Switzerland, Sweden, and the United States, shows in his wonderfully interesting memoirs, "Theatre of Life—l9os-1936" (chapter VII, "The Swiss-Democracy"), hew efficiently, stably, and well a systeru very similar to that outlined above has worked out in Switzerland since 1874. It is a well-worth-while object lesson to democracies everywhere in these days that try men's souls.—l am, etc., A.W..