I received a communication last week from Ronan Mullen who, aside from being a fine columnist with another newspaper, is a candidate on the NUI panel in the Seanad elections, writes, John Waters
He was asking for my support. I wept copious tears, partly for being reminded once again, as I am on each occasion of a Seanad election, of my inferior status, and partly from the emotions generated by Ronan's obvious misapprehension - gathered, I assumed, from the quality of my spelling and punctuation - that I had in fact been to "college". When Ronan followed up his e-mail with a phone call, it emerged that he was fully aware of my democratic deficit (I did not go to university and therefore am a non-person when it comes to elections to the Seanad), but thought perhaps I might give him a mention in this column.
Regretfully, I had to decline. Though impressed by Ronan's passion and commitment to promoting the dignity of the human person, his strong views on the importance of family and community, his call for global solidarity and opposition to human trafficking, I explained that I was opposed to oligarchy and could not make an exception. My position, I outlined, is that I am a believer in universal suffrage and looked forward to the introduction of full democracy into Ireland in my lifetime. It would therefore be inconsistent to recommend one elitist candidate over another. Ronatold me he shares my views and believes that both the system of election and the broader operation of the Seanad are in urgent need of reform. For the Seanad to be meaningful as a second house of parliament, he said, it would have to be "more democratically elected and more seriously capable of forcing a second look at legislation".
The last time I heard such views expressed was five years ago, following the last Seanad election. The speaker was Mary O'Rourke, who had just been appointed leader of Fianna Fáil in the Seanad. We were debating on radio in the light, or heat, of an article I'd written arguing that, because Seanad elections trample on the most basic principles of democracy, the sheer uselessness of the Seanad might be deemed its sole redeeming quality. "Watch this space," said O'Rourke, by which I understood her to mean that Ireland would be a full democracy by the time the next Seanad elections came around.
Alas, here I go again, outlining the case for full democracy in Ireland. First the tedious details. The Seanad has 60 members, 11 of whom are nominated by the Taoiseach, ensuring a government majority.
The bulk of senators - 43 of the 60 - are elected from panels of people alleged to have "knowledge and practical experience" under a number of vocational headings, including language and culture, literature, art, education, agriculture and fisheries, labour, industry and commerce, public administration and social services. This intriguing arrangement was introduced as a reflection of Catholic social thinking of the 1930s and, in particular, the philosophy expressed in the 1931 papal encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, by Pope Pius XI, which stressed the coming together of major social interests as an alternative to class division. A provision in Article 19 of the Constitution whereby vocational groups, councils or associations could directly elect their representatives has never been activated by legislation, which means that these 43 seats are currently elected by less than a thousand politicians, ensuring that the composition of the Seanad shadows that of the Dáil. The remaining six senators are elected by graduates of TCD and the NUI. A constitutional referendum in 1979 provided for the extension of voting rights to graduates of all third-level institutions, but no law has yet given effect to this.
In fairness to Mary O'Rourke, she appears to have done the best a member of the Seanad could possibly do to put things to rights. Four years ago, following a debate in the Seanad on how that house might go about embracing democratic values, a resolution was passed appointing her to chair a Seanad sub-committee charged with conducting a public examination of the possibility of reform. With fellow Senators John Dardis, Brian Hayes and Joe O'Toole, O'Rourke acted on what their sub-committee's report called the "widespread consensus" in favour of reforming the Seanad, conducting a wide-ranging study, including public consultations, research on upper houses in other jurisdictions and assessment of no less than 11 previous reports on how the Seanad might be reformed.
Their final report made a number of very reasonable recommendations, including the continuation of the university panel in democratic combination with direct popular elections, and a system of rolling renewal whereby the Seanad would be elected on a phased basis and never fully dissolved. This rather impressive report has now gone to join its 11 predecessors in sub-committee heaven. Like many before her, Mary O'Rourke was fired with resolve and good intentions but forgot that nobody takes the slightest notice of anything any member of the Seanad has to say about anything, especially the Seanad.