Reaction to Seanad result

I’m disappointed with the result of the referendum on Seanad abolition. There’s no point now in detailing once more why I thought this would have been a good idea and a worthy reform of our political system. The result was not what the polls predicted, and while polling firms might have found it difficult to estimate likely voters, there also was a definite swing against us. With this short time to consider the result, I think the blame for that most likely rests with the Taoiseach and his closest advisors. When he announced this in 2009, I thought (or hoped) it was a sign that he was truly embracing an element of radical and substantial political reform. Yet during this campaign, he did not show the confidence to explain and defend it to voters. I know of people who were leaning in favour of abolition but who voted against because they did not believe he should be rewarded and credited with such a change if he would not stand up for it. If it were a long-held party policy, or an initiative of another minister, it would have been fair enough to have delegated it to the director of elections, as usually occurs at referendums. But he was the one who reintroduced this to the political conversation in 2009. As the leader of our government, Enda Kenny should have explained clearly and plainly the merit he saw in this.

Party members were let down by this. A defeat in a poll is never a pleasant experience, and this is one that could have been avoided. The internal conversation and debates should have started long before the summer. And party members should have been involved in formulating our arguments. There is a time and a place for focus groups, but the political instincts of motivated and interested members should be respected and sought. We ran with poor campaign messages. The largest party in the country could never have credibility talking of the benefits of fewer politicians. The discussion of cost does have a place, but it should not have been the starting point. Not to mention some embarrassing stunts, which are probably all right as moments of levity during a campaign, but not when they become key pieces of it. We needed a wide-ranging and targeted campaign, one that showed from the start that it was a position of substance and principle, that stood up to scrutiny, based on solid research.

Fine Gael needs to learn from this. We didn’t learn from the referendum on Oireachtas Inquiries; here we are two years later with practically an identical margin against. Reform that requires constitutional amendment needs to be framed in a way that appreciates and addresses the legitimate suspicion the public have when the executive seeks to alter the arrangements in the constitution.

In the RDS count centre this morning, a non-aligned campaigner said to myself and a member of a different party that for people like us, it was a tribal matter. It wasn’t that for me. Had Fianna Fáil or any other party proposed this, and Fine Gael been against, I would still have publicly supported this. I am not right now disappointed for Fine Gael that we as a party have suffered a defeat in a poll. I am disappointed in Fine Gael, and I things change have to change.

And to those who opposed abolition, well done on a well fought campaign.

All we can determine from yesterday’s result is that the voters wanted to keep a second house. We should now think carefully and critically about how its 60 members should be selected and what their role should be.

Yes to Abolition of Seanad Éireann

I will be voting Yes this Friday to abolish the Seanad (the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill). I have tried to encapsulate across different platforms the various reasons I have for doing so over the course of this campaign, over different platforms. In short, in these closing days, I hold that in a country like Ireland, without clear and sharp cultural or geographical divisions, we should have a single parliamentary chamber composed of representatives elected by us to pass laws on our behalf. This is something I first considered around ten years ago, and since then it had always seemed like a common sense proposal. We hear of many ideas for its reform, but that casts it as a house in search of a purpose. What reforms are proposed are ones that should be delivered for the Dáil, as our house of representatives. And even though I don’t believe political reform should stop here, I think it is a worthy reform in itself, to remove a house elected by a privileged section of society in a proportion of university graduates, of senators I’d barely recognise elected by Oireachtas members and councillors, and 11 who may or may be not be decent senators depending on the whim and needs of the Taoiseach.

I was delighted when Enda Kenny announced this policy soon in 2009, not long after I joined Fine Gael, and that he stuck with this commitment through the election campaign and into government. I would not have had the primary focus on cost that we saw from Fine Gael posters, but I think we have had a broad debate. Whatever the result on Friday, at least the people will have had their say.

Should a gay man support the Seanad?

On the Future Matters blog, Rachel Mathews-McKay wrote in defence of the Seanad under the headline, ‘The Seanad has stood with our LGBT Community’. It is true that two of the most well known senators, Mary Robinson and David Norris, played crucial roles in advancing equality for gay people in Ireland. But should this lead us then to credit the institution of the Seanad for this progress and for it to be retained because of this legacy? Does my activism on gay rights conflict with my enthusiasm for abolition of the Seanad? Let’s examine the history in greater detail.

The Campaign for Homosexual Law Reform began in 1975 with David Norris, a member of the English Department at Trinity College Dublin, as it most prominent member. Its legal advisor was Mary McAleese, who was succeeded in that role by Mary Robinson in 1979. The 1885 law which had convicted Oscar Wilde, and which had been largely repealed in England and Wales in 1967, was still in effect in Ireland.

Mary Robinson had been elected as one of the three University of Dublin senators in 1969 (continuing there till 1989), but it was through her actions as a legal counsel that she was most successful in bringing about social change, whether on this question or on many others. When David Norris sued the state on the claim that criminalisation of homosexuality was unconstitutional, Robinson acted as his barrister. In Norris v. AG, the High Court ruled against him in 1980; on appeal to the Supreme Court, they too ruled against him in 1983.

They filed in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Ireland was a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights in 1947, and Northern Ireland resident Jeffrey Dudgeon had successfully sued there in 1981 in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom to secure the repeal of the law, which still then applied in Northern Ireland. The law was changed for Northern Ireland in 1982 (a separate law had been passed to apply to Scotland in 1980).

In 1987, David Norris was elected as one of the three University of Dublin senators, in large part in recognition of his work in this campaign.

Noël Browne speaking on Seanad abolition, November 1957

On 20 November 1957, Independent TD Dr Noël Browne proposed a Private Members’ Motion, “That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that Seanad Éireann as it is at present constituted should be abolished.” The motion was seconded by Independent TD Jack McQuillan (Browne and McQuillan were to found the National Progressive Democrats in 1958).

Browne continued on 27 November. On 4 December, Taoiseach Éamon de Valera instead proposed a commission to examine the method of election for senators, and Noël Browne reluctantly accepted this compromise, saying “we shall accept that position as making the best of a bad job and wish the committee to be established every success”. (Credit to John O’Dowd of UCD’s School of Law for initially pointing me towards de Valera’s response)

Browne did serve as a Senator for the University of Dublin from 1973 to 1977, as many do between time in the Dáil when they lose their seat, but bar taking account for inflation, much of his 1957 speech stands as true in today’s debate. I have reproduced this speech in full.

I move:—

That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that Seanad Éireann as it is at present constituted should be abolished.

In moving this motion it is necessary to go over some of the history associated with the formation of the Seanad and its subsequent career. This is the second time that a motion of this nature was moved in this House. On the previous occasion, however, the motion simply asked for the abolition of the Seanad as it stood. It was moved by the present Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera, and behind him he had the backing of an effective majority, with which, there was no doubt, he intended to implement his will.

I do not intend to go into the reasons why the then Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera, insisted on the removal or abolition of the Seanad but I shall draw to a very considerable extent on many of the very cogent, telling and compelling arguments which he used at that time in order to try to persuade the House to agree that a Seanad as such or, indeed, any Second Chamber at all was neither desirable nor necessary in a democratic society. As two Independents, it is quite clear that we cannot depend on the great overwhelming majority of a Party. Possibly because of that it should be possible to get a more reasoned argument from both sides of the House, to have the motion considered in a non-Party way, and, if possible, allow the Deputies to express their viewpoint independent of the Party Whip.

To those who feel that the Seanad is serving a useful purpose as it is and do not want to have it changed, I would very much like if they would put forward their arguments and try to justify their belief. I should not like to treat the House in the positively boisterous way in which the Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera, treated it away back in 1934, when he put the onus entirely upon the Opposition to prove that the Seanad was required. He said in Volume 52, column 1809, of the Dáil Debates:—

Vote Yes on Seanad to reassert democratic purpose of Dáil

I am particularly motivated in the upcoming referendum on the abolition of the Seanad as I see it as a matter of democratic principles. It is something I have held for many years, and I was delighted when Enda Kenny announced his personal support for the reform.

The purpose of a legislature in a modern democracy is to elect representatives held accountable to make laws on behalf of the people. And in parliamentary democracies, as exist in most European countries, these elections are also when we vote on the makeup of the government. At each general election, the people decide collectively on where the balance of policy should be, whether a government deserves to be re-elected, or whether we should take the chance to kick the rascals out.

The direct involvement of the people in their governance through the electoral was a hard-fought struggle, and one which over time a growing number of people across the world have been able to enjoy.

All stages of this process, from parliamentary processes to the preferences of voters, should be subject to constant scrutiny and eternal vigilance. A recent book by Anthony O’Halloran, The Dáil in the 21st Century (2010) provides a good comparative analysis of this, drawing on international comparisons and developing theories of political science. Reading it with weeks before this poll, I couldn’t but notice the dog in the night-time, that he wrote such a thorough analysis of the democratic purpose, strengths, deficiencies and potential of the Dáil, and the importance of a vibrant, republican civil society, without any need to address a role for the Seanad.

Within the European Union, there is close to an even divide between unicameral and bicameral parliamentary systems, with a small bias of fifteen to thirteen in favour of a single house. But there is a clear population differences between these countries: the 15 with one house of parliament have an average population of 5 million, where the 13 with two houses of parliament have an average population of 33 million.

In some countries, the second house of parliament is a clear legacy of the role given to aristocratic influence, as we are familiar with from the House of Lords. In others, it is because of the importance given to federal structures, as in Austria, Germany or the United States.

Second houses do have a basis in countries with a divide that is too important to be left to a simple majority of representatives. This was a good reason for the Constitution of the Irish Free State to include a Seanad, where there had been an understanding that William T. Cosgrave would appoint a large number from outside the Roman Catholic population. Its first Cathaoirleach was Lord Glenavy, who had served as Lord Chancellor of Ireland from 1918 to 1921. There could be a good similar reasons to have a second chamber in the case of a united Ireland, but there would be other substantial constitutional amendment in such instance.

A second house, then, frustrates the primary house of representatives. It is all the worse in the case of the Seanad given how its members are chosen: 3 elected by scholars and graduates of Trinity College, Dublin; 3 elected by graduates of the four universities of the National University of Ireland; 43 elected across five panels, where councillors and TDs have a vote in each panel and invariably select fellow party members, and often those who recently failed to be elected in Dáil elections; and 11 nominated by An Taoiseach.

Not all of this is set in stone. Senators Katherine Zappone and Feargal Quinn proposed the Seanad Bill earlier this year, which would give a vote to all Irish citizens. On the face of it, it seems like a democratic improvement. But I think it could be worse than the status quo, as it retains the panels of Administration, Agriculture, Education, Labour and Industry, and the concept of distinct parliamentary representation for university graduates. While the current system entrenches the influence of political parties, a national election based on candidates from these panels would entrench the role of sectoral vested interests.

There is a great democratic potential in the Dáil. Most of those campaigning to retain the Seanad say we should vote No and reform the Seanad.

I say we should vote Yes: abolish the Seanad, and then focus all further desire for political reform in the Dáil, as the democratically elected house of the people.

Do we need the Seanad?

It is unusual that a country of our population has two houses. The fifteen EU countries (including Croatia joining next month) with one chamber have an average population of 5 million; by contrast, the thirteen EU countries with two chambers have an average population of 33 million. I have not done a full statistical analysis, but population looks like one of the most likely predictors of whether a country’s parliament will have one or two chambers.

Of course, this is not reason enough in itself to support abolition of our Seanad, but it is a worthy reminder that the absence of a second chamber would not make Ireland unusual in comparative terms.

The next question is whether the current Seanad can be defended. A house of parliament, being a body that legislates on our behalf, should maintain democratic legitimacy and accountability; as far as is reasonable, it should be possible for voters to choose their representatives and then to remove them after a period of years. While this happens in the Dáil, as seen most clearly in the last general election, it is quite different in the Seanad. Forty-three are elected by elected politicians, six by a proportion of university graduates, and eleven appointed by An Taoiseach.

I believe this system in large entrenches governance by political insiders. Each new Seanad has had members who were defeated at the recent Dáil, whether among the 43 elected by Oireachtas member and councillors, or those appointed by An Taoiseach. Someone who was not successful in a general election should return to civil society, and perhaps try again at the next election, rather than receive a separate mandate to legislate from their party peers. And while I would commend Enda Kenny on the diversity of experience of his eleven nominees, this cannot be guaranteed on. These nominees are still among those who are politically connected, and broadly favourable to the government parties, even if most of them have genuinely Independent within the house.

Though a beneficiary of the graduate franchise, and was pleased to cast a vote for Jeffrey Dudgeon standing for the University of Dublin seats in 2011, I don’t see a defence of it. Nor would I consider extending it to graduates of other colleges and universities as an improvement, as it would only entrench an idea that someone is more qualified as a citizen with different levels of education.

Each of these aspects could be reformed. But I don’t realistically expect a government who has lost a referendum on the Seanad to spend much time afterwards drafting legislation to reform it; nor would I expect Fianna Fáil in government to expend any similar time on legislation, while they as much as any others have benefited politically from the current set up. Reform might sound nice, but it brings to mind the mice calling for a bell on the cat, for all that it is likely to happen.

So the vote will be whether or not to vote to abolish the Seanad as we know it, with a number of compensating measures. Reform is not in any real sense on the table.

Nor do I think I would much like to see the reforms proposed by Democracy Matters, which would give all citizens a vote in one of the vocational panels (Administrative; Agricultural; Cultural and Educational; Industrial and Commercial; Labour). I think our country has divisions enough between different sectors without these being formalised in our legislative structures.

We hear of the many admirable and outstanding current and previous Senators. But the abolition of the Seanad would not remove their voice from Irish society. I believe that is a role for the press, the universities and a vibrant civil society to play, to engage with the democratic process, while not having a direct part in it as of right.

I await to see the Amendment Bill this week, and the strength of the proposal will affect how actively I will campaign in the autumn, but as of now, I would need a very strong reason to support retention of our second house.

Liberal Democrats and the Lords

Just over two years ago, I supported the Liberal Democrats going into the 2010 Westminster election and I looked forward to the coalition agreement. I’d broadly have been supportive of the government in our neighbouring country, a test of policy in a country with similar culture yet in many aspects of politics quite different to our own. I’d even have supported most of the ideas in George Osborne’s recent controversial budget, be it the pasty, granny or caravan taxes, as I’d have a strong instinct against tax exemptions or expenditures, so was disappointed with the u-turns.

I’d have supported the AV referendum, and would generally support the need for political reform and renewal of institutions. It’s interesting to watch the debate on the House of Lords given the current debate in Ireland on the future of our Seanad. What was particularly interesting watching the debate last Monday was the small number of MPs from both Labour and Conservative sides who argued for complete abolition of the House of Lords, something I would sympathise with, but would be a major departure in the case of Britain given its traditions of parliament.

The problem of designing an upper house both in Britain and for those in Ireland who think the Seanad should be reformed is balancing democratic legitimacy of legislators with avoiding gridlock between two houses claiming democratic legitimacy.

The proposal in the House of Lords bill was for 80% of Lords to be elected for 15-year non-renewable terms using proportional representation by the list system in regional constituencies, as Britain currently elects its MEPs. The problem with this proposal is that it grants democratic legitimacy of an election, without accountability, as this set of legislators would not face the legislature after their decisions. While the current Lords have never faced the electorate, this very fact means that at least since 1945, they have deferred to the primacy of the House of Commons. The more I listened to speeches from Labour and Conservative MPs against the proposal, the more I felt it was a bad bill that deserved to be defeated.

It’s a very unfortunate measure for the Liberal Democrats to find themselves tripping up over. As a party, they have a reputation for being particularly wonkish, more interested in issues like political reform than the other parties. It seems to me indicative of why they are losing support in the polls and finding it difficult to gain ground. While reform of the House of Lords will gain them credit with their members, and is an important constitutional issue, they should not have allowed this to the one to cause such a backbench rebellion rather than any other proposal. They have lost political capital against their Conservative colleagues, particularly at the backbench level. They put too much faith in the government whips to deliver on this bill. I found myself agreeing very much with Conservative MP Louise Mensch on Twitter last week, finding common terms for reform but identifying the flaws in this proposal, and that beyond this issue, a real priority for the Liberal Democrats should be to work for equal marriage.

The Liberal Democrats can come back from this, but last week showed that while the coalition was working relatively smoothly at the cabinet level, there are clear tensions and resentments below.

What is the point of the constitutional convention?

See Constitution.ie for the Constitution of Ireland and articles referenced. Tho for some reason, the downloadable version is missing Amendments passed since 2004.

I unfortunately have to agree with most of what Conor O’Mahony wrote in The Irish Times (‘This so-called constitutional convention is a charade’) and with Matthew Wall in agreement with him on PoliticalReform.ie (‘Confessions of a demoralised political scientist’). The proposed constitutional convention is a far cry from the Philadelphia convention in 1787 O’Mahony references. At this convention, delegates from the thirteen states rewrote the Articles of Confederation into an entirely new constitution, which though subject to 27 Amendments since its adoption in 1787, in the elements of the divisions and roles of the branches of government, has remained the broadly the same since then.

The Programme for Government agreed in March 2011 specified a number of issues for the convention:

• Review of our Dáil electoral system.
• Reducing the presidential term to 5 years and aligning it with the local and European elections
• Provision for same-sex marriage.
• Amending the clause on women in the home and encourage greater participation of women in public life.
• Removing blasphemy from the Constitution
• Possible reduction of the voting age.
• Other relevant constitutional amendments that may be recommended by the Convention.

Of course, the last item leaves the convention wide open, but there has been little to suggest that this will be a wide-ranging overview of the Constitution. This seems clear from the two items first on the agenda: whether to reduce the voting age from 18 to 17; and whether to reduce the presidential term from 7 years to 5 years. Satire could hardly devise two less pressing amendments.

I would vote against a reduction in the presidential term, unless it was in the context of a redefinition of the role. Reading Tom Reddy’s The Race for the Áras, I was reminded of the whole drawn-out distraction of last year. There are reasonable proposals for amendment on the president, making it one term only, or changing the nomination process, but having more frequent elections is not one.

I have an open mind on the voting age, though I think it would make sense to lower the voting age for local elections first, which does not require a referendum.

I would obviously welcome a referendum on same-sex marriage, and if it’s to have an airing in the constitutional convention first, so be it. But ultimately, it will be a fairly simple amendment, adding a subsection, “No two people may be excluded from marriage by reason of their sex”, to Article 41.3.

Section Article 41.2, “… her life within the home …”, should be deleted. Let’s not try to devise a statement on family life and the roles of parents that could in turn seem out-dated in a few decades’ time. This is really not the sort of thing for a constitution in any case. And delete the word “blasphemous” in Article 40.6.1° i.

So what should it discuss?

So of all the enumerated issues, that leaves the electoral system. This is the only one of these proposals that to my mind merits discussion by a convention, rather than a simple yes/no proposal that could be people to be debated like any other referendum.

Our system of election to the Dáil of proportional representation by single transferable vote is often blamed for clientelism and localism in Irish politics, leading to a subordination of national concerns to local issues. Would the Convention will reach a conclusion other than that of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution two years ago, to keep the current system? Perhaps, as the membership of that committee inevitably had a status quo bias, having been elected under the current system.

What I don’t understand is why the abolition of the Seanad is not on the agenda. This is the sort of issue that would actually benefit from being discussed in a convention. There are references to the Seanad throughout the Constitution. Of the 141 Fine Gael and Labour Oireachtas members, I’m sure there is a considerable number, even if a minority, who would have doubts about the merits of this proposal. I would be in two minds on whether we need a second chamber. Finland, with a comparable population to Ireland’s, has a unicameral chamber; Sweden and Portugal with twice our population also survive with just one chamber. Yet surely there is a benefit to legislation being heard in more than one chamber. There are problems with the current Seanad and I have problem with the democratic legitimacy of the current membership.

I would certainly be against any abolition of the Seanad without a corresponding reform of the role of the Dáil and its committees. The idea behind last year’s failed amendment to allow the Oireachtas to conduct inquiries was not without merit at some level. But it made no sense to rush it within it in the first few months of the government when this constitutional convention was due to happen. The Convention should also consider ways in which the balance of power between the executive and the legislature might be rebalanced.

I understand that Enda Kenny has a personal attachment and commitment to putting the abolition of the Seanad to the people, but we would surely benefit from considering this proposal in the context of the other institutions of government.

The Constitutional Constitution is a good idea, but let’s have one that matters, where none of the fundamental institutional issues which are being discussed in amendments to the constitution are left out of its consideration.

Fine Gael National Conference 2010

Over the weekend, I attended the Fine Gael National Conference in Killarney, where I had a great time. It was my first Conference with the party, and great to get to know people. I was also genuinely impressed with the party. Having been to party conferences before, and followed politics in general long enough, I know that all too often these such occasions are simply about rallying the troops and fomenting the common identity between members, in the case of those in opposition, talking in vague terms about how things could change for the better, but without substance.

It was during the seminar on the New Politics that it became clear that the party really is serious about reforming the political system. This started with Enda Kenny’s announcement last year that he planned to put a referendum to the people on the abolition of Seanad Éireann. Last week, The Irish Times published draft details of proposals of the parliamentary party on Constitutional reforms, with details such as list seats, a reform of the term of the president, and greater powers for certain Dáil committees. What became clear as Phil Hogan made his presentation to the Conference was that the real proposal was not these proposals as such, but the idea that something needs to be done. It looks likely that this will be organized by way of a citizens’ assembly, with time to engage with whatever proposals, to react to them and propose any relevant changes before they are put to the people. This received a very positive response from Prof. David Farrell of the UCD Department of Politics, and it is something that many commentators have called for. This is the beginning of a discussion that people really do want.

There were other areas too. There’s FairCare, a radical overhaul of the medical sector. While Mary Harney’s reforms did help in reducing, by removing private beds from public hospitals and through the National Treatment Purchase Fund, they did not change the fundamental nature of the provision of health care. Fine Gael’s proposals would manage to eliminate on the broad scale the division between public and private patients while maintaining a competitive private health insurance system.

There are the New Era proposals for job creation, with a plan to provide for 105,000 new jobs in certain key areas such as broadband and energy. To be honest, this is one area that it is very difficult to anticipate what could be done this far out, as the macroeconomic demands of the country after the election will determine a lot. But of more immediate relevance were the policies developed by Leo Varadkar to tackle unemployment at the lowest margins, to make it more attractive to keep employees working part-time than to dismiss them. There are some perverse incentives at this level, and we need to make a clear commitment that welfare policies should be such that no one should ever find themselves in a position where they would have less money if they started work.

What I encouraged me overall was a feeling of hope, not just from a partisan level that we will lead the next government with a strong mandate. On the principle of throwing the rascals out, at the next election more than any previously, we could presume to run on that basis. It would be all to easy to have spent time asserting a simple valence point, that we could do a better job than Fianna Fáil.

But this hope was a feeling of optimism about the country, what we could do in government. It was not about the vague principle of a need for change or a new sort of politics, but something that was far more clearly outlined than we might expect from an opposition party before an election itself. While Fianna Fáil are now doing what they can to salvage the economy and move the books to a sounder state, it will take a party with a fresh approach and focus to bring forward real change.

I had to smile to see a few familiar faces, that I was not the only former Progressive Democrat in Killarney. My old party emerged during the 1980s, as an optimistic force with a radical approach to all aspects of politics, including major Constitutional reform. Of course, it never had the opportunity to play a role as the leading party in government. In Fine Gael, facing the next election in a time with a need for renewal, I now feel, much more than I did before the weekend, that we have a force for meaningful change.

Keep 3 Trinity and 3 NUI seats or abolish the Seanad

Three of the best cases for not abolishing Seanad Éireann to me seem to be the three elected for the University of Dublin, Shane Ross, David Norris and Ivana Bacik. Ironically, outside of wholesale abolition, their seats seem to be most at risk. I can understand the argument that if it were to be abolished now, we would lose the great independent voices they provide, but it is quite possible that we will lose them regardless.

The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, approved in 1979 by 92%, allowed a redistribution of the three University of Dublin and 3 National University of Ireland seats to include graduates of other third-level institutions. Legislation has yet to be made for this provision, but Minister John Gormley has promised a change by the end of the year. This looks likely to be a move to reduce to one each the seats elected by Trinity and NUI, with the other four graduate seats elected by graduates of all other third-level institutions.

Any change of this nature implicitly accepts the idea that graduates deserve an extra voice in the Oireachtas by virtue of being a graduate. By the four general graduate seats not being tied to any particular institution, there would be no appeal in the campaign for that election to any institutional loyalty, as occurs particularly in the election for Trinity, because of its size and unity. These would be seats that would end up being fought by the political parties on a national scale, to all those who happen to be graduates. So rather than the current seats, which have long historic origins, dating back to 1613, and which have served a useful purpose by electing good Senators, an election under this proposal would be much more elitist in nature, fought on a national scale in the media but directed only at graduates of any institution. It’s easy to dismiss the current system as an historic quirk, but that would be the case under the proposed change.

However much one might dislike the idea that there are certain graduates and not others who have this extra franchise, the answer for those who find this distasteful is not to extend this elite section of the electorate, but to end it entirely. Until then, let us be thankful for the benefits of this inequality gives us in the form of the great Senators it has delivered to date.

Fine Gael and the Seanad

A blog from a friend of mine today excoriates Enda Kenny’s announcement that he would hold a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad. This criticism was on the basis that any discussion of such a fundamental reform of the political process should not be justified on purely budgetary grounds, as Mr Kenny has done, characterizing this as “a populist headline-grabbing stunt”.

As a matter of disclosure, I should mention that I am a member of Fine Gael, and therefore hope that Enda Kenny will be in a position to push for such a referendum after the next election. So my defence may be seen in simple partisan terms, but I do think people are often too quick to denounce an attempt to fly a kite such as this as populist. Yes, any measure that helps cut the deficit that targets only politicians will receive popular support in these times given the regard politicians are held in. But the point is that we do have a massive fiscal deficit. Everything will have to looked at. In every area of the public service, or that receives state funding, organizations will claim that theirs is the one that should not be cut, and that at the end of the day, €30 million is only 0.1% of the deficit anyway.

A proposal to abolish the Seanad is not a new idea. It was first seriously proposed by the Progressive Democrats in the new Constitution drafted in 1988. I was proud to have been a member of the Progressive Democrats in their time, but this was one of many policies that due to their relative strength in government, was never seriously promoted, and unfortunately it faded into the 1990s as a proposal.

Now that the party that will almost certainly lead the country after the next election is raising this question, this should be welcomed, as they do have the credibility to tackle the question. As to the method of securing headlines, yes, this is more likely to animate the public, but should not in itself be a criticism. The public should see that politicians are willing to take cuts themselves at this time, just as it is to be welcomed that Ministers will be taking a pay cut in December’s budget. Mr Kenny’s suggestion has indeed been welcomed by An Taoiseach, Brian Cowen as part of the process of suggestions on democratic reform.

Once the time comes, if a referendum is taking place, then a debate can take place in earnest, or in the months leading up to drafting such legislation. Mr Kenny is not calling on the government to hold such a referendum, we are all a little tired for that. It is not something that will or can be done in haste, but such firm statements as this concentrate the minds of both politicians and the public on this question, which is no bad thing.