Sir, – Opponents of Seanad abolition argue that the Seanad is necessary and should be reformed instead. A gullible voter might believe that voting No will lead to this reform. But where is the guarantee that such promised reform will materialise in the event of a No vote?
The Irish electorate has been promised Seanad reform many times before. We even had a referendum on it. In 1979, the Irish people by 92 per cent approved the Seventh Amendment which allowed the university franchise to be expanded to include other third-level institutions. In the 34 years since then, has the university franchise been expanded?
There have been numerous reports on Seanad reform. The most recent in 2004 made many suggestions, including that half the Seanad should be directly elected by the people. Has this suggestion been implemented yet?
If, after three decades, the political establishment won’t even expand the university franchise, what realistic hope is there for more radical reform?
The danger of voting No is that reform may not happen and the Seanad continues on in its current form. This autumn, I will have my first vote on the Seanad. I sincerely hope, with your assistance, that it will also be my last. – Yours, etc,
JASON FITZHARRIS,
Rivervalley,
Swords, Co Dublin.
Sir, – The main reason a Senate of 60 members was established in the first place in negotiations with Griffith and Collins in 1922 was to protect the interests of the small unionist/Protestant minority in the Free State.
A second chamber was the norm at the time in the British Commonwealth, to which the Free State was required to belong. Viewed as elitist, it was abolished and replaced by the present Seanad Éireann under the 1937 Constitution.
Forty-three of its members are elected after very competitive contests by the people whom the people elect, eg city and county councillors, incoming TDs and outgoing Senators. It is a form of indirect democracy very similar to the French system, which ensures there is no conflict of legitimacy between the two chambers.
The only elite element is that of the university seats: the electorate for which should at least have been broadened out long ago, since the 1979 referendum, to include all third-level institutions. Nevertheless, one of the Seanad’s more important functions through the mid-20th century continued to be to give a voice to the minority, represented for instance by Professor WB Stanford for 25 years, at a time when majority political and religious opinion was still fairly monolithic. He also defended the State from unfair political criticism from unionist co-religionists in Northern Ireland. Historically, the Seanad will be seen to have played a significant role since in the opening up of Irish society.
While a great deal has changed since then, this State, unlike most of its small counterparts in Europe or further afield, is situated in a divided island, with, north of the Border, still very divided allegiances. Ironically, what has always put unionist supporters off a united Ireland most has been the fear of undiluted majority rule, of a type they practised themselves for 50 years, having quickly got rid of minority safeguards in the 1920/1 settlement. The proposed abolition of the Seanad by a government with the largest majority in the history of the State would also remove the Taoiseach’s nominees, which allowed remarkable people from both communities like Seamus Mallon, Bríd Rodgers, John Robb, Gordon Wilson and Maurice Hayes to make a valuable contribution to better mutual understanding as well as to our democracy. One day, a second chamber might provide some of the flexibility that would make it possible to accommodate communities, which have long been politically separated from us.
Among the states created since 1918, Ireland has been since the end of the Civil War one of the most politically stable. The pitfalls of undiluted majority rule even between elections can be seen in Turkey today. It is unrealistic to expect that with the abolition of the Seanad TDs will discover spare time and energies to devote to extra legislative duties, however structured, and be prepared to downsize their constituency input.
The lesson of the economic crisis is surely not that we need to strengthen the executive, and further weaken the control of the legislature, by excluding outside experience and influence from its composition. The people twice rejected ill-conceived proposals to import the British first-past-the-post electoral system, and after consideration they may see this attempt to entrench further majority rule and remove a parliamentary safeguard in the same light and as a false economy. – Yours, etc,
MARTIN MANSERGH,
Friarsfield House,
Tipperary.
Sir, – I never realised I lived in such a wonderfully run country, due in part to a great Senate which provided (I am now told) “cheques and balances” for the collapse of my country during Celtic tiger mirage. Foolish me. – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN CAFFERTY,
Ballina, Co Mayo.
Sir, – Our Seanad is manifestly unnecessary since we have already succeeded in combining the characteristics of the two houses of the parliament on which our institutions are perhaps somewhat embarrassingly based – the House of Lords, where the seats were hereditary, and the Commons, where the members are elected – in the Dáil, where the seats are both. – Yours, etc,
WILLIAM HUNT,
Northbrook Avenue,
Ranelagh, Dublin 6.