Near the entrance of the Forum in Rome is a second century AD fully-roofed Senate building. If it had been the older building, where Julius Caesar was stabbed to death on the Ides of March, 44 BC, at the most famous Senate sitting in history, the crowds would be even greater.
The following lines of Shakespeare remind me a little of the recent duel on the Aer Rianta Bill, without pushing analogies too far:
. . . and Cicero
Looks with such ferret and such fiery eyes
As we have seen him in the Capitol
Being crossed in conference by some senators.
To the admiration of some and dismay of others, the leader, Mary O'Rourke, does not belong to the uno duce, una voce school of politics.
Capitol Hill, Washington, was consciously modelled on ancient Rome, in an age when classical learning was at the core of education and aesthetics. The US Senate has an almost equal lustre, representing the 51 states and the wisdom of the more settled part of the legislature. Members of the House of Representatives have to seek re-election every two years.
Our own Senate is a decidedly more modest institution. The Seanad does not have the function of representing states or provinces, nor the power of blocking a federal government.
Nor does it wield in practice the delaying power of aristocratic wealth and modern plutocracy reflected till recently in the British House of Lords, which may be a necessary, though still unsatisfactory, check on the untrammelled power of large majorities created by the first-past-the-post electoral system.
The only real power the Seanad has is the power of argument, which is often decidedly unequal to the argument of power. One benefit of the relative lack of media attention, outside of the Order of Business which is covered in Oireachtas Report (provided the other House is sitting), and apart from this paper, is that there is little point in playing to the gallery, because usually the gallery is empty.
While the partisan element is not absent, particularly on certain set-piece occasions around private members' motions, most senators try to deal with legislation and debates on social or foreign policy as much as possible on their merits. Many bills are introduced in the Seanad and difficulties identified, to be dealt with there and then, or when they go to the Dáil.
Ministers, who steer bills through themselves, and who are confident enough to recognise and accept improvements, are particularly appreciated. The disadvantage that ministers of state labour under is that, with the best will in the world, they have no leeway to respond on the spot.
My first encounter with the Seanad was as an adviser, when I was sent over to monitor a debate on the crisis economic situation on September 30th, 1982, for which the Seanad had been recalled.
The motion had been signed by the independent senators.
Senator Shane Ross, still with us, gave a trenchant right-wing analysis of government profligacy and mismanagement, before Deputy Charlie McCreevy put down his motion of no confidence in the Taoiseach for the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party. When Senator John A. Murphy, who was allied at that point to Sinn Féin the Workers' Party (and the withdrawal of their support in July 1982 meant Haughey's government was living on borrowed time), rose to say that he shared neither Senator Ross's diagnosis nor prescription, I returned to Government Buildings in tranquillity.
From the early 1980s, regular nominations were made by successive taoisigh of senators from Northern Ireland, including Gordon Wilson on the initiative of Albert Reynolds. I remember attending in Armagh in December 2002 the trial, unseating and brief imprisonment of Séamus Mallon for the awful crime of being a senator and an MP at the same time.
In discussions en marge of the negotiations on the Belfast Agreement which corrected that, the regularisation of Northern participation in the Seanad was discussed, given that it presents fewer constitutional, procedural, or emotive implications than the Dáil, apart from invitations to a committee of the House.
The only real argument for increasing Seanad membership by referendum to 65 would be to accommodate Northern members, reflecting the main political strands in both communities, as well as the middle ground, so well represented at present by Senator Maurice Hayes.
The recent internal report on Seanad reform contains many valuable suggestions for an expanded role, in relation to Europe, social partnership, scrutiny of major public appointments, and in providing a right of audience to former taoisigh and tánaistí. It is proposed that the leader would be a minister of state with a right of attendance at cabinet, so as to provide better liaison and communication between the Government and the Seanad chamber.
Anyone who has succeeded in being elected has a certain vested interest in their method of election. Most elected senators value the somewhat arcane system of indirect election, by panel and involving outside nominating bodies, which binds them closely to the city and county councillors who form the bulk of their electorate. This system of indirect election leads to keen contests, and gives councillors a valued role in national politics.
The committee recommendation is that the number so elected be reduced to 20, and the rest elected directly by the people on a list system with candidates placed in order of preference by the leadership (a recipe for trouble). How much this would improve the democratic legitimacy of the Seanad in respect of parties is unclear. It might well encourage very attractive independent lists.
I wonder whether this or future governments would welcome more mid-term elections, as is also proposed, and the consequent discontinuity and possible loss of control, impeding work in the second half of a term.
An implementing committee has been appointed, chaired by the Minister for the Environment Martin Cullen. It may take the more straightforward suggestions first. If a breakthrough is made on the North in September, then Seanad reform, encompassing its Northern dimension, will become a pressing priority.