History against deep political reform

ANALYSIS:There is agreement on the need for change, but will the plan ever be implemented?

POLICY PAPERS on political reform tend to be ambitious, and there is overlap in the stance of both Government and Opposition parties. The reasons are straightforward: the shortcomings of the political and parliamentary systems are glaringly apparent. The solutions are quite obvious.

But there is a problem: there has not been a policy paper on political reform published in the modern era that has been implemented.

Minister for Defence Tony Killeen more than hinted at this earlier this week when he suggested a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad should be held on the same day as the general election. He referred to the tendency of commendable opposition papers disappearing into the ether once the opposition enters government.

Labour’s policy paper New Government, Better Government, published yesterday, is no different. It is a well-researched document with 140 proposals to reform what it describes as “a broken system”. Many are far-reaching and ambitious – a new constitution to replace de Valera’s Constitution from the 1930s is the first item on the agenda – but the question will revolve around implementation.

Fine Gael, last year, and Labour, yesterday, have both committed themselves to the abolition of the Seanad. And the promises of implementation yesterday, made by party leader Eamon Gilmore and report chief author Brendan Howlin, suggested that if the system is broken as the party claims, their promises to make it good won’t be broken too.

Gilmore said the archaic Dáil rules could no longer be tolerated. Howlin made a firmer commitment: “Our intention is that all the work, including constitutional change, be achieved with the lifetime of the parliament.”

The proposal to set up a convention on the Constitution will be questioned by some who think the 1937 document has stood the test of time.

Labour’s proposals are somewhat novel, but importantly, are not too far removed from those of Fine Gael. It proposes a 90-member convention of politicians; legal and other experts; and ordinary citizens chosen at random. It also wants it to draw up a new draft constitution within a year.

The future of the Seanad would be within its remit. But yesterday’s paper showed the party was not kicking the can down the road. In a separate point, it concluded there was no case for retaining the Seanad. In a long appendix, the party sets out its reasons for backing a one-chamber system.

The paper is a little more conservative – as you would expect – on the public service than Fine Gael, but, importantly, it envisages recruitment to the senior sectors from the private sector, and secondment of public servants to private companies.

Many of the proposals are sensible, with some chiming with populist sentiment. It wants an independent fiscal advisory council to give expert advice on the State’s economic outlook; a 50 per cent increase in Dáil sitting days; a committee week every month; and a reversal of the Abbeylara judgment that robbed Oireachtas committees of teeth in issues of public controversy – such as the Dirt tax evasion scandal.

Can it all be accomplished? On previous experience, you would have to say no. But political reform is much higher on the agenda than at any other time in the history of the State.