I am fond of the Seanad. I worked for a long time in the same building as it, and during my time in Leinster House I saw many fine Senators in action. Advocating its abolition is not a position I have taken lightly or without considerable thought. But it is a position I am taking, because the Seanad serves no meaningful purpose in today’s politics. It is an outdated, irrelevant and inefficient institution, failing to properly represent the people, failing to add meaningfully to the legislative process, and failing to hold government to account. We need a better parliamentary system.
The question I asked myself is whether, faced with the political problems we are currently faced with (and these are considerable) if we were to start from scratch and design a parliamentary system that functions robustly, would we design a two-chamber system. And the answer is no. Our central problem in political life is that our Government is dominant over our parliament. A two-chamber solution will not tackle that. We need to have a powerful legislature capable of holding the government to account so that the checks and balances between the three organs of the state work properly, rather than the government-dominated system we currently act within. The best model for a country of our size and a society of our type is a single chamber parliament, with democratically-elected politicians accountable to their electorate, representing that electorate, legislating wisely and holding government to account.
I can see the rationale for a second house in certain models of government. In federal states, it makes sense to have two houses – one in which the representatives are elected proportionally to be the voice of the people, the other in which the representatives are elected by the states themselves, to be the voice of the federated state. So two-chamber (or bi-cameral, as it is known) parliaments make sense for Brazil, Nigeria, and the USA. It also makes sense to have a two-chamber parliament in states which have a history of internal conflict or strife. In those states, a talking-shop second chamber without power serves the necessary purpose of ensuring that ethnic, religious or minorities have a voice on a national level.
What is the Seanad? The Seanad or Senate is the second chamber of the Irish Parliament, and it sits in the same building, Leinster House, as the principal chamber, the Dáil. There are 60 members. 11 members (18%) are appointed directly by the Taoiseach. 43 members (72%) are elected by TDs, incumbent Senators, City and County Councillors. 6 members (10%) are elected by the graduates of Irish Universities (but not colleges), with an electorate of around 150,000 people. More than 95% Irish people have no vote in a Seanad election. Yet if it is retained (and if I hold my seat as a Councillor) I will have two votes in its next Seanad election.
The Seanad for the last seventy years has very limited powers – for example the government is only accountable to the Dáil, not to the Seanad – including the power to delay (but not prevent) legislation. The last time it delayed legislation, man had not yet been to the moon.
Why do we have a senate? Two reasons. The first reason is that in formulating his Constitution in the 1930s De Valera was influenced by vocational and corporatist political theories which were then in vogue. These theories, trendy in the nineteen-thirties and heavily associated with fascism, did not survive the Second World War. They are not solid grounds on which a parliament should be built. The second reason is that we inherited the Westminister model of parliamentary democracy which has the House of Lords as a legacy of the evolution of Parliament away from unelected elites and towards democratically-elected representatives. Neither of these are compelling reasons for Ireland. If we did not have a Senate we would not want one.
This is not personal. It would be easy to point out the ridiculous escapades of some senators as a basis for abolition; it would be just as easy to point out some of the great work done by senators as a basis for retention. But our political problems are systemic; so too must be our political solutions. The Seanad does not do justice to the fine people who are and have been members of it, and does not do justice to the Irish people it purports to represent. The abolition of the Seanad is one step in the right direction towards learning from the mistakes made in the last fifteen years and turning Ireland into a healthy modern democracy, with a functioning parliament that legislates wisely and that holds government to account scrupulously.
What about Seanad reform? Those advocating Seanad reform, such as the Fianna Fáil party, are being very smart, as they are deliberately missing the point. Seanad reform will not solve anything. The Government needs to ensure that Dáil reform is delivered, the kind of reform that sees strong and effective Dáil committees hearing the advice of experts and shaping legislation, the kind of reform that sees an institution built which can actually hold the government to account. Advocating Seanad reform is just a way of calling for reform without delivering it.
There are a few models of Seanad reform being peddled. None is credible. We could have a democratic Seanad, elected by the people and with real powers. But that is what the Dáil should be, and we don’t need a second one – one good one would be enough. A second one would dilute the effectiveness. We can have a stronger Seanad, like in Italy, but the consequences will be an Italian model of government, with a weak government collapsing a few times a year because of a Seanad disagreeing with the Dáil. We could have a purely representational Seanad, with people elected just to make noise. In these times of mass and social media we do not need a house of the Oireachtas to give a platform to campaigners or those with strong views. The next time someone tries to peddle you Seanad Reform, ask them what model of reform they are talking about. And ask them how they hope to make it happen. Seventy years of talk of Seanad reform, and it has not yet happened. A range of Seanad reformers, all agreed that it should be saved, but no agreement on the use to which it should be put. And no hope of getting reform through a Constitutional referendum, so it is all academic anyway.
I am slow to meddle with the institutions of the state, stable as they have been since before the Second World War. But the Seanad has no role to play in a reformed political landscape, and I will therefore be voting for its abolition.