Madam, – Suggestions that a referendum on the abolition of Seanad Éireann be held on the day of the general election are facile and premature (Front page, January 3rd). As I pointed out years ago when the Progressive Democrats favoured abolition (while hypocritically availing themselves of Seanad seats), doing away with the Upper House would involve disembowelling the Constitution. Apart from Articles 18 and 19 which are specific to the House itself, the Seanad is interwoven with numerous other articles in the body of the document, dealing with the legislative, executive and even the judicial functions of the State. All references throughout to “Seanad Éireann”, and to “either” and “both” “House(s) of the Oireachtas” would have to go. By my reckoning, this would mean deleting, in whole or in part, 21 articles out of a total of 50. It is nonsense to pretend that such drastic changes can be presented to the people in the short time now available.
However, the proposal to remove the Seanad would appear to have both popular support and, now, all-party approval. But it should happen during the lifetime of the next Oireachtas in the context of overall change. In fact, this is the ideal opportunity to introduce a constitutional basis for that kind of radical political and social reform which is now being widely demanded. A new Constitution would embody those crusading principles to which so many politicians now profess attachment and which should inspire their policy platforms.
A reformed Constitution can be promoted in the next year or two through all-party consensus or, if necessary, by the strong and stable government we soon expect. Éamon de Valera pushed through his 1937 Bunreacht in a much more divided context, constitutionally speaking.
On the whole, it has served us well, but it is now time to replace it by a new document reflecting a vision for our times.
– Yours, etc,
Madam, – The enthusiasm of the political parties, particularly Fine Gael, to abolish the Senate is very strange, to say the least. The problem with the Senate is that it has been somewhat used and abused by these same political parties. Nevertheless, most democratic countries of the world operate what is called the bicameral system. This is regarded as an important measure of “check and balance”. In the Irish case there is obviously need for some reform. However, this latest proposed act of improving democracy by reducing it sounds very, very sinister.
– Yours, etc,
Madam, – The Dáil proposing a referendum on the abolition of Seanad in the name of political reform is like an alcoholic destroying his neighbour’s drinks cabinet while keeping his own intact.
Abolition of the Seanad before a single change has been made to the workings of Dáil or the sham that is local government is worse than a figleaf, it will leave us dependent on the hope that all TDs will start to focus on national and legislative matters and more wishfully that the entire electorate will reward them all for it. Is this likely?
The Seanad as it stands cannot continue, but the rush to abolition smacks of the mantra that no greater love hath a politician than to lay down his colleague’s political life for his own. If the proposed referendum contains detailed and wide-ranging reforms of the entire Oireachtas and of the sham that is local government along with the abolition of the Seanad then it deserves serious consideration. If it is simply a case of abolition alone then we are trusting ourselves to the tender mercies of the Dáil alone – which is, we should remember, the same body that elected the current Government and Taoiseach. And which the people in turn elected.
By all means abolish the Seanad when we have non-geographical constituencies based on one person, one vote that allow for voices not tied to the parish pump, when we have local government reforms in place, and cost savings from reduced pay and expenses for all public representatives.
The call at the next election should be reform or die, not die, die, die.
– Yours, etc,
Madam, – The current proposal to abolish the Seanad is a disgrace.
Why should the political establishments, fought for over hundreds of years, by the revolutionaries, United Irishmen and the leaders of 1916 be dismantled, dissolved and eradicated as a result of the corruption, dishonesty and irresponsibility of those now in power? It’s a shambles!
Reform of the Seanad I totally agree with in order for it to become more viable, transparent and accountable.
Let’s make the system more accessible to the public. Why not give all the seats to the universities of Ireland (at least they will know what they are talking about)? Or create a citizens' parliament, on the basis of selecting members of the public, like jury duty. Give the people of this nation a true voice in politics, not a referendum to cover it up.
– Yours, etc,
Madam, – It seems a majority of the Dáil is now interested in abolishing the Seanad.
Having emaciated the Freedom of Information Act, the Dáil now proposes to extinguish another oversight mechanism. What a pity that, instead of looking for specks everywhere else, the Dáil would not consider removing the rather substantial plank in its own eyes.
– Yours, etc,
Madam, – I must strongly oppose any attempt to abolish Seanad Éireann. That the upper house is in dire need of reform is unquestioned, but the very old practice of bicameralism is important in today’s world, where questionable legislation could be forced through parliament without due scrutiny, or on a wave of national emotion.
Minorities will be at risk, and the ugly head of xenophobia, which seems to bubble below the surface, could be given access to legislative force.
There are indeed real issues with bicameralism, such as needing a concurrent majority to govern efficiently. However, I think the panel system could work effectively, if we could have direct popular vote along the lines of the current panel system, and remove the direct appointment system which loads the house in favour of the current government.
A neutral, educated, experienced representative body is needed to protect the interests of the citizenry.
I’m not sure the unicameral club of China, much of the Middle East, and a handful of African nations is one to which we should aspire. The rights of minorities and women are not high on the agenda of many of these countries.
– Yours, etc,