Sir, – I disagree with Prof David Farrell's view (Opinion, February 7th) as to the merit of reforming Seanad Éireann in the wake of the electorate's rejection of the Government's initiative to abolish it.
First, I fail to see how the reformed Seanad proposed by the Democracy Matters organisation and others would have “a membership closely mirroring the lower house”. Prof Farrell is right, of course, that the political parties would have their own candidates seeking seats in the Seanad. But a Seanad elected by the broad citizenry, I strongly suggest, would comprise a quite different membership than a Dáil whose members are elected by constituencies. As such, I do not accept that it necessarily would be similarly “dominated by the political parties.” Furthermore, a reformed Seanad would have equal numbers of women and men. It will be some time before gender equity is realised in the lower house.
Second, Prof Farrell cites the position of other European Union member states as a significant factor in his analysis that Ireland may not be “so special that it should need a directly elected upper house.” I don’t think it’s much less apposite to reference the position of US states in this regard: Rhode Island, 1.05 million people, two houses; Montana, one million people, two houses; North Dakota, 700,000 people, two houses; Wyoming, 580,000 people, two houses. I could continue. And all their citizens have a vote for both houses.
Third, Prof Farrell states that the upper house would have “few if any powers”. Adding another level of scrutiny to that which comes from Europe and to Government appointments are just two of the important tasks that a more deliberative Seanad could assume heightened responsibility for. While these are perhaps less glamorous undertakings, the Seanad could add real value to Irish democracy in the process.
Fourth, the issue of costs is to the fore of Prof Farrell’s argument. But as he acknowledges, “democracy is never cheap”. It is not cheap to post ballots, nor would it be cheap to facilitate the participation of our emigrants in Seanad elections as reformers advocate. Yet it is the right thing to do, and costs (which the Government can certainly work to minimise) mustn’t deter us from the pursuit of a more perfect democracy.
During the Seanad referendum campaign, one allegation our opponents made about those of us who recognised the potential of a reformed Seanad was that we were “dreamers”. I think it’s good to dream of a system of politics and government that doesn’t merely function, but flourishes. I believe a reformed, renewed Seanad Éireann would be a big step in that direction. – Yours, etc,
LARRY DONNELLY,
School of Law,
NUI Galway.