MARGINAL COMMENT
By HAROLD NICOLSON
LAST week's Spectator contained an interesting and opportune letter on the subject of the party system. The argument, if I understood it aright, was that the old methods of parliamentary organisation were sick unto death ;, that the symptoms of this malady were, first, the continuance in power of a Coalition Govern- ment, and, secondly, the recent popularity of independent candidates ; that the main cause of the illness was the domination of the party machine ; and that the cure to be applied was for the Government to free our electoral system from the poisons of party finance by paying the election expenses of all candidates who polled a certain proportion of votes. There was a time, many years ago, when I might have agreed with such a diagnosis, although I should not have agreed with the suggested treatment. I, too, felt that party discipline was apt to stifle independence of judgement and originality of thought. I was even tempted for a while by the logical attractions of Proportional Representation, and felt that by this method one might obtain a more equitable representation of minorities. Seven years of practice have induced me to modify my previous theory. Having watched our system working day in and day out since 1935, having also watched the decay and collapse of democratic govern- ment in Germany and France, I have come to the conclusion that the two-party system, flagrantly illogical though it be, is, on the whole, the best system yet devised for the reasonable governance of man. I should not today advise an aspirant in politics to become an independent or to attach himself to one of the small parties. I should say to him: " Goldfish are obliged by the needs of survival and protection to live in water surrounded by glass. An intelligent but inexperienced goldfish may well imagine that he would be more at his ease in a small but exquisite wine-glass of his own design. The wise goldfish chooses the largest bowl."
Previous page
