Madam, – James Jennings and David Wilkins (January 5th) would do well to have a good look around before they tell us all that bicameralism is a symbol of modern democratic systems.
Mr Wilkins, in particular, tells us that he is not sure that the “club of China, much of the Middle East, and a handful of African nations is one to which we should aspire”. Would he be happier if we aspired to join the club of Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia perhaps? All of these modern European democracies seem to have avoided the “horrors” that a unicameral system of government apparently delivers.
Both of your writers might be surprised to learn that a majority of countries in the EU operate under such a system of government.
Nobody doubts that oversight of government is a necessary part of any democratic system. But the idea that we somehow need two chambers of parliament to do this is unproven. There are other methods by which such oversight can be achieved. Sweden, for example, has a strongly empowered independent anti-corruption unit; Iceland is in the process of enacting powerful laws to protect whistleblowers and an ultra-modern Freedom of Information Act. There are several other examples from all over Europe of how we can achieve openness without the need for a second chamber.
It is possible to live without the Seanad. It would be preferable if its abolition was part of a package of measures to provide for transparency and oversight of the governance of the country, but at least it would be a start in reducing the over-bloated political system that we currently have in Ireland. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Tony Killeen believes that there is “a public appetite for reform” of the Senate (Home News, January 3rd). Why does he ignore the support for reform already expressed in a referendum (widening graduates’ voting rights) and jump to advocating abolition? Abolition is not reform.
This Government, or the next, should start by legislating the change that the people have already shown they want, and allowing it to function for the duration of a parliament or two, before deciding what further adjustments are needed.
Since one purpose of the Senate is to introduce deliberation into the legislative process by slowing it down, it is both a symbol and a mechanism of gradualism. The need for it to exist and to function properly is illustrated by the indecent haste with which the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act was rammed through in a few hours last month. It would be a tragedy if the Government were now to pave the way for the Senate’s demise by bulldozing another half-baked, radical enactment through parliament this month. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Senator Joe O’Toole commented that though the Senate was established to be a voice for civic society it was not allowed to develop as intended in the Constitution (Home News, January 4th). He says that what is now required is wholesale reform. Abolition would be a threat to democracy, would constitute a cut-back on political accountability and would result in a loss for “people on the ground”.
As a retired teacher/lecturer with some experience (recently re-inforced) of being “on the ground”, could I respectfully ask for one example of the Senate speaking for civic society in defence of political accountability? May I quote the emasculation of the facility for Freedom of Information; the scandalous treatment of the office of the Ombudsman; the recent secretive action of the Minister for Finance in the courts and decades of facile comedy emanating from an unrepresentative chamber of unelected failed party hacks. The Senate has failed the Irish people. In God’s name go before the electorate or just go. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Last November instead of facing the inevitable and calling a general election, this Government allowed the most important budget in the history of the state, and by extension the economic future of the European Union to be held to ransom by Michael Lowry and Jackie Healy-Rae. Now it is suggesting rushing through a referendum, at significant cost to the taxpayer, to significantly change the Constitution and governing architecture of the State in order to delay the general election a few weeks and as an electoral wheeze.
In the face of such naked cynicism, there can be no doubt that this Government has lost all moral authority to govern and that its continuance in office represents a threat to the future welfare of the State and its citizens.
We need a general election now! – Yours, etc,
Madam, – It is to be welcomed that Fianna Failure has seen sense on something and has agreed with Fine Gael’s plans to abolish the Senate. Labour’s belated support for this popular measure is also welcomed. Let us hope that this is a sign of what the next government will be like, Fine Gael leading and others following.
It is disappointing that the Greens feel the amendment would be too difficult to draft by the general election. What is wrong with the following wording: “Notwithstanding any other provision of the Constitution, the Senate is abolished and any reference to it is void.”? Short and easy to understand, so why not go with that? It is offensive to hear senators, out of touch with popular opinion, desperately cling to their jobs with vacuous arguments for retaining the Senate.
Arguing that the Senate allows for different voices and more scrutiny of proposed legislation actually supports the idea of Dáil reform. If the Dáil electoral system was changed to a list system to remove the clientelist, parish-pump, coffin-chasing gombeens and allow for a broader range of more talented people to enter public life, and Dáil procedures changed to allow for more time to scrutinise legislation and hold the executive to account, what need would there be for a senate?
Arguing that because other countries also have senates, Ireland should too, ignores that some are federal or highly devolved countries which use their senate to provide equality of representation for their constituent regions. Others are monarchies or former monarchies where the senate represents, or used to represent, the aristocracy or intellectual elite. As Ireland is not a federal country, and is supposed to be a republic, this is a moot argument.
It should be noted that unicameral parliaments predominate among unitary republics, so Ireland is unusual in still having a senate. As for the remaining democracies, like Ireland they still have a senate because their turkeys also don’t vote for Christmas, and it suits the ruling elite to have a senate to reward party favourites.
In all discussions about abolishing or reforming the Senate, the point remains that Senators have had more than adequate time to prove the need for their continued existence; they have constantly failed miserably to do so.
Ordinary people have so little respect for the Senate that when the referendum is held, it will have the biggest Yes vote of any referendum. Senators looking to be elected to the Dáil should bear that in mind when knocking on doors over the coming weeks. – Yours, etc,