THE H.B. TRIBUNE TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1927 FRANCE’S CHANGE BACK

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 213, 23 August 1927, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1927 FRANCE’S CHANGE BACK

J7LECTORAL reform is a cry that ■js almost universally heard. No matter what the system may be that is in actual operation, there are always a goodly number who are ready to express dissatisfaction with it and who have some remedial scheme they would like to see adopted. France has just gone through a slightly paroxysmal phase of the never-ending discussion, but it has ended not in the acceptance of any new plan, but in the reversion to an old one. The Paris correspondent of the “Times” gives some insight into both the system that has been discarded and the system that has been resumed which should be of distinct interest to students of the subject. Tlie French Chamber of Deputies, he writes, has gone back once again to the old method of “scrutin d’arrondissement’’ for electing its members. That it should have made the change after no more than eight years’ trial of the alternative system adopted after the war shows how indispensable the principle of direct representation is to French Republican politics. “Scrutin d’arrondissement” (ballot for a district nr ward) means the representation of the “arrondissement” by one man, as opposed to the representation of the larger electoral unit, the Department, by a list of several, and has been called by the most evil names, such as “scrutin de ’corruption.’ “sorutin de gladiateurs,’’ because it pits one man against another, and is supposed, therefore, to favour the candidate who spends most money in the constituency and who pays for the largest number of “pots-de-vin.” It has been condemned for directing the attention of the elector and the Deputy to local issues and interests, instead of to affairs of national importance. All the same, it appeals to the average Frenchman as no other system does, because he feels that it gives him control over his Government. With the Deputies of the- Department the average elector ijaiinot he in very close personal association. None of them is partienlarly responsible to him. He can cal! tlie representative of his “arrondissement” to account with far greater effect; he can get him to write to tlie Minister of Finance about his income tax, or tp badger him for a relic! subsidy when the hail spoils his vines. The Deputy is bound to respond far

more readily to these appeals when his seat depends on the direct votes of a small district, than when he is returned for the Department together with several others by an elaborate, mathematical, and entirely impersonal process.

“Scrutin de Liste” (ballot for a panel), the system that has just been abolished, and “scrutin d’arrondissement” have succeeded one another several times since universal suffrage was introduced in France. The two systems connote quite distinct theories of electoral procedure. “Scrutin d’arrondissement,” which establishes the closer and more direct relation between the citizen and the Government, has been called the more democratic. “Scrutin de liste,” on the other hand, is commended for its greater fairness, because it allows of the representation of several parties in the same district. “Scrutin d’arrondissement” contains the principle of the predominance of the majority, but “scrutin de liste,” by encouraging parties to group them selves together for the formation of one list, favours large movements of national or popular opinion. “Scrutin d’arrondissement” turns the attention of tlie voter to local rather than national interests, causes candidates to specify their programmes and policy in greater detail, and thus leads to the dispersion of the Chamber into a number of different groups. “Scrutin de liste” tends to produce large combinations of groups with similar interests. On the whole, the former 'gives the permanent administration a greater influence on the elections, and thus has nearly always been reintroduced after » change of “regime” in order to help the new rulers to maintain themselves.

After giving some instances of the see-saw between the two systems, and of variations made in them, the correspondent brings us up to a time when first the Panama scandal and then the Dreyfus case had lowered France in the eyes of the world This position public opinion ascribed to the operation of the “parish pump” politics arising from the long reign of the single-seat plan of election. There was thus a general demand for another change, and it was about this time that the movement in favour of proportional representation arose .among the minority group. Electoral reform was a political issue all through the early years of this century, but this was not realized until after the war, when the broader vision which had been induced by the world struggle led Parliament to adopt a form of “scrutin de liste,” in the)hope of giving politics a more national character. The actual form chosen was intended to combine the characteristics of proportional representation with the principle of control bv the majority. It started by distributing the seats in a Department among the competing lists according to the strength of their vote, but wherever the figures of the poll did not lend themselves to an exact distribution tlie seats left over fell to the list which had received the largest number of votes. Thus it might happen that out of the six seats in a Department four would go to a party which had received less than half the votes recorded.

In practice the system, strangely enough, produced a result not unlike the plain British method of the majority vote; it divided the Chamber for practical purposes into two opposing parties. For where such a premium is placed on the majority, it is the interest of all groups with more or less similar programme to combine in setting up one list >f candidates which unites all their supporters. This tendency naturally produced a Right and a Left wing. This has been the case at both the General Elections which have been held under this system. In 1920 ‘he National “Bloc” won the day; in 1924 the “Cartel des Gauches”; and in each Chamber Right and Left wer/ in constant and violent opposition to one another. This outcome has not, it is said, pleased the average French citizen, who, whether of the town ir country, is one of the most conservative beings in the world, especially where property rights are concerned. There is thus always a strong combination to form what may be called a large Centre Party of more or less moderate views. This accounts for tlie very short periods of existence of “scrutin de liste,” which tends to produce a two-party system with more or less “extreme” wings. We see it introduced at moments when, after a period of political stagnation, the spirit of the nation has been aroused to new ideas, but as surely as it begins to part the Right from the Left and set Socialist against Conservative the spirit of Republican moderation reasssrts itself, and the country goes back to “scrutin d’arrondissement'’ in spite of its manifest drawbacks.