Enda Kenny is seeking attention with a plan at variance with one he flagged just recently, writes VINCENT BROWNE
ON SATURDAY night last at what is called a Fine Gael “Presidential” dinner, Enda Kenny said: “We will shortly publish a report on the New Politics. But tonight I would like to focus on a few key areas where a Fine Gael government would introduce radical change. I believe the Seanad should be abolished, and the next Fine Gael government will put this to the people. I have come to the conclusion that a second house of the Oireachtas can no longer be justified.”
On Monday on RTÉ Radio One’s Morning Ireland, he was asked why he had proposed this in advance of full consultation within his party on the issue, when seven months ago the party published a document advocating the reform of the senate, not its abolition. He replied: “The Senate has outgrown its usefulness. I have tried very hard to justify the existence of the Senate over a period . . . its legislative function has faded, particularly since we abolished the dual mandate [ie politicians serving as councillors and parliamentarians]. This is something I have been considering for some time. When I was up at the MacGill Summer School in Glenties in July . . . I made it perfectly clear that I was considering a radical agenda in terms of how we do politics in Ireland. I signalled that . . . I have taken a leader’s initiative in this, and this is what leaders are for . . . This mind is not for changing on this.”
On RTÉ Radio One’s News at One, Seán O’Rourke played a tape of Kenny’s contribution to MacGill. He said: “I see a new role for the Seanad entirely. The system of voting has got to be changed. Every graduate should be entitled to vote for the Seanad. I see real opportunities for connection with Europe. It should be the forum where MEPs can address the Seanad. It should be able to examine European legislation in a real . . . way. It should be a forum where delegations can come and make their case on national issues, and the whole lot of it should be on a parliamentary [TV] channel.”
How this carry-on can be characterised as “courageous” (as it was in this newspaper yesterday) rather than as air-headed opportunism, is unclear to me. A few months ago Enda Kenny was talking excitedly about a new role for the Senate; now, coincidentally, in the wake of his being eclipsed by Eamon Gilmore (and eclipsed cynically) on the John O’Donoghue issue, he seeks attention with a proposal that is entirely at variance with what he was taking about a short time ago. The claim that he had been considering the abolition of the Senate for some time is absurd, that is if “some time” means something more than the day before yesterday.
The point of the Senate is not clear, especially given the manner in which people are elected and appointed to it. But the problem with our political system is not to do with the Senate, it’s to do with the Dáil, and you can be assured that Fine Gael’s New Politics will avoid every one of the central issues there, too, just as the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution has done.
The central issue has to do with how parliament has become the creature of the government, thereby rendering almost meaningless the notion of the government being responsible and accountable to parliament. Government decides what parliament does, what it debates, what it legislates. Government decides how, if at all, it should be accountable to parliament. And, almost always, parliament goes along with that, because the government of the day commands a majority in parliament. Governments like this approach, and governments-to-be, or parties that think they are governments-to-be, like it, and therefore there is no hope of changing the system. Except . . . Except in a time of crisis, and perhaps now is such a time.
Kenny claims to have recently studied the political systems of other European countries. He will therefore be aware that parliaments in several states, eg Germany and Denmark, have a procedure known as a “decisive minority”, whereby a minority in parliament or in a parliamentary committee can institute an investigation into a particular matter and insist on procurement of documents and witnesses (and answers), including government ministers. Why not here?
There is a provision in the German constitution, known as the Basic Law (Article 38), which provides: “Members of the German Bundestag [the lower house of parliament] shall . . . not be bound by orders or instructions and [are] responsible only to their conscience”. Would it be going too far here to require TDs to act in accordance with their consciences? Would it be going too far to rule out the use of party whips to enforce compliance with the diktats of the government of the day?
How about a referendum to overturn the Supreme Court’s bar on Oireachtas committees investigating issues that might reflect adversely on the reputations of citizens? And how about a provision whereby a certain number of citizens (say 100,000) could demand a referendum on any decision to be taken by the Dáil and the outcome of that to be binding on the Dáil? Or is the sovereignty of the people going too far?
It might lead to a functioning Dáil and a functioning democracy. But is Enda Kenny interested?