Sir, – The noble six ex-members of Seanad Éireann who want at any cost, it seems, to save it (July 23rd) have missed two small details.
We can no longer afford it and we can do without it. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The authors of the “Saving the Seanad” letter (July 23rd) state the Seanad “can have a valuable democratic and constitutional role as a revising chamber, and as a political check and balance on the powers of a transient Dáil majority”.
Seanad elections follow closely on the heels of general elections, so Seanad results can be heavily influenced by the dominant party in the new Dáil. In the 30-year period 1981-2011, which covers the selection of Senators for the 15th through 24th Seanad, only on three occasions did the government of the day fail to obtain a majority for the time of those three particular first sittings. Can we really expect much different results from a Seanad reformed in some manner?
A further point to consider is there are eight other democracies with a population similar to Ireland’s; only one of them has a second chamber in its national parliament.
What is certainly needed in Irish politics is the strengthening of voices and viewpoints that might not be heard in the present system. Reforming the Seanad may indeed require extensive reworking of the Constitution. Yet retaining a second chamber more prone to reflect a dominant opinion than offer a platform for independent-minded members to achieve goals does not aid Irish citizens in gaining effective oversight of the political system. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The abolition of the Seanad is a plan that only seems to be an issue of debate for current Senators and those hopeful of a place there in years to come.
For most people, reminders of the Seanad’s continued existence come as a surprise. The Seanad exists as mimicry of the House of Lords in Britain, which itself only survived after the civil war because the victorious Roundheads had to make concessions to the hereditary nobility in order to secure a peace.
The power of the Lords has waned considerably since then, and debate continues in Britain as to the usefulness of that house, its make-up and its continuance. Our own upper house never had any significant power and serves only as a plush retirement home for party hacks who cannot get elected by the people.
There is enough impotent debate in the Dáil and media already. Power lies only in the Cabinet – everything else is window dressing and hot air. The constitutional convention should address this facet of government above all others. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – If we accept the fundamental premise of representative democracy is the notion of universal franchise and if we accept that those who pay for government should be entitled to a say in its operation; then it is fair to say that the Seanad fails the litmus test of a democratically constituted upper house, for certain people are entitled to vote in Seanad elections while others are not.
There are some who favour reform and I have yet to read a cogent argument for its retention, for as it stands the institution of the Seanad is beyond that and should be abolished. – Yours, etc,