OPINION:The desire to get rid of the Seanad is clear. Its removal would kick over the statues and nourish a feelgood factor, but leave our political flaws intact
ABOLISHING SEANAD Éireann would appear to have some merit: there is a growing political consensus to get rid of the Seanad; it would be a populist move giving voters an opportunity to kill off an entire class of politicians; it would end Ireland’s anomalous position as one of the few small (non-federal) democracies to have a second chamber; and it would save the public purse some €25 million per annum.
But why the rush? Other than the fact that it might delay the election (because of the need for enabling legislation) and that a dramatic gesture like this might wrong-foot the Opposition, is the Fianna Fáil-led Government being too clever by half? In what sense will the voters reward them for this move? What about the other more pressing issues that this will have leapfrogged over, most notably the long overdue children’s rights referendum?
More importantly, other than giving us a chance to give politicians a good hiding and saving some money, what actually would Seanad abolition deliver? What is the problem that its removal would supposedly solve? Do the proponents seriously think that by doing this they can tick the box and say they have “delivered” on political reform?
The first thing to note is that we’ve been here before. The Seanad was abolished in the 1930s, as it happens by Fianna Fáil, only to be reinstated in a new form under the 1937 Constitution.
Since then, its future has preoccupied the minds of learned committee after learned committee (10 to date), each of their reports gathering dust through political inaction. And we have already had a referendum vote on the Seanad in 1979, to change how senators representing university seats are elected.
Despite passing, we’ve yet to see any effort to implement the amended article 18.4.2 of the Constitution. This more than anything blows a hole in the argument for an immediate scrapping of the Seanad, because even if the referendum occurs and passes, it would then require the political will to implement amendments to the 20 Articles of the Constitution that make reference to the Seanad – some changes (over the composition of the Council of State for instance) may require delicate political manoeuvring.
Given that repeated governments over the last 31 years have failed to implement the seventh amendment to the Constitution, can we really expect much action on this in the short term?
The problem is that, for the most part, members of the political establishment are either in denial, preferring the status quo, or more insidiously proposing reforms that are aimed at the wrong targets. So we have repeated calls to replace Ireland’s single transferable vote electoral system with something like the German system that combines the constituency-based merits of the British system with the party lists systems used in most European countries. We’re told that this reform would end the excessive localism of Irish TDs.
Then there are those calling for reducing the numbers of TDs, arguing that we have more politicians than we need and this would save money. And now we have the proposal to abolish the Seanad on the grounds that we don’t need it and again it would save money.
These might be popular steps particularly for an electorate baying for politicians’ blood, but they will do little to fix the real problems with our political system. Changing the electoral system will not on its own stop the localist emphasis of our TDs. Shrinking the size of the Dáil will only reduce further the pool of ministerial or frontbench talent available. Abolishing the Seanad will if anything weaken the ability of the Oireachtas to hold the government to account.
Reforms like these may well have their merits and may well be popular, but they should only be seen as part of a wider package of reform. Any one of them taken in isolation – such as this Seanad abolition proposal – is little more than a distraction from more pressing issues and an effort by elements of the political elite to take the heat out of the true political reform agenda.
Political reform is not something to be entered into lightly, and certainly not something to rush. It needs to be taken in stages: an identification of the problems that need fixing; discussion of options for reform that are designed to fix those problems; and only then, if required, referendums.
We’re still working our way through the first stage. Ideas are emerging (not least on the pages of this newspaper, but also on websites such as politicalreform.ie) among them: how to make government more open and transparent; improving our regulatory systems; an overhaul of recruitment and promotion practices in the public sector; cleaning up party finance; strengthening local democracy; and making the government more accountable.
More needs to be done to test the veracity of ideas such as these and to turn them into credible plans of action. We can’t allow this process to drag on too long – change is undoubtedly needed. But nor can we rush things: to do so would be even more damaging.
The Seanad referendum may never happen and this episode may end up being little more than a kite-flying exercise by a government desperately looking for ways to stave off the inevitable, but it has served an important service. It reiterates the need for serious and sustained engagement with the political reform agenda, with the aim of reshaping our political and administrative institutions to make them fit for a modern 21st century democracy.
Prof David Farrell is head of the school of politics and international relations at University College Dublin