Sir, – Fergal Davis (Opinion, August 29th) seems to confuse assessing the perceived benefit of having an upper chamber with what it actually does. The Seanad has limited powers and is a gross affront to democracy. It is stuffed with the outputs of grubby campaigning among councils and a motley crew of abject failures (failed candidates for the Dáil and Seanad), eccentrics, the obligatory nationalist/unionist and the odd “dahling” from the arts or NGO space. In addition to this, we are treated to the genteel wisdom of the NUI and TCD Senators. Collectively, by virtue of standing for these repugnant seats, the university senators disgrace themselves.
It is important to separate out the debate on what we can do to improve our Dáil and its ability to challenge the executive and scrutinise legislation from what if anything the Seanad can actually do. It would seem patently obvious that allocating additional powers and enhanced autonomy to the Dáil and its members would in one sweep remove any basis for an argument for retaining the current or a reformed Seanad.
I am tempted to take a somewhat longer view of things than the reactionary tone of much of the debate about this proposal. There may be greater overreach by the executive in the short term but where that happens, it will by necessity be tempered in the fullness of time. Even the risks presented by such an overreach are an insufficient argument for retaining it. The Seanad couldn’t and didn’t stop the bank guarantee, the largest single instance of executive overreach in real if not legal terms in our State’s history. Therefore, it should quite simply go. The Dáil is quite capable, with relatively modest reform, of doing whatever it is that proponents of the Seanad say it does.
In democratic terms, the Seanad is bankrupt, an elitist entity that is utterly beyond redemption and despoils the most basic understanding of equality, republicanism and our supposed universal franchise. – Yours, etc,
ROSS McCARTHY,
Ardinagh Great,
Ballymitty, Co Wexford.