Sir, – Philip Pettit makes some good points (Opinion, July 28th). But I would suggest three amendments to his proposal: 1. Senators should be elected for 15 years and not be allowed to stand for re-election, to free them from the short termism of getting re-elected. 2. One-third should stand down every five years so that fresh blood comes in. This would need a phasing-in measure. 3. In addition to Mr Pettit’s ideas on the remit of the Seanad, it should also be required to safeguard the needs of the less populous areas.
Of course there should be no nominated Senators.
We can learn from the US, which has the right idea in that the Senate has two representatives for each state.
Thus the weight of populous states is countered. As a Munster man I believe that we need that to counter the weight of the Leinster area. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – It is ironic that on the day your paper carries an editorial on “Longfingering difficult issues” (July 28th) Philip Pettit, in an Opinion article on the abolition of the Seanad, writes: “The ideal forum for discussing such a possible reform, of course, would be in the constitutional convention that the Government plans. It beggars belief that the issue of the Seanad is not on the agenda for that body.” Oh dear.
First, anybody has the right to vote against the abolition of the Seanad if they wish, but what they do not have is the right to deny others an opportunity to vote on it. Even a cursory glance at the Constitution and the number of times the Seanad is mentioned in it makes it clear that preparing for a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad is quite complex and will take some time. To now throw this issue in with something as complex as the constitutional convention would be as classic a case of longfingering as one could find.
Hang on, that wouldn’t be why Michael Martin and senators of all shades have suggested it, would it? No, no, they’d never be that cynical. Would they? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Listening to the Seanad Éireann reformist lobby, I am strongly minded of a flock of turkeys in a comfortable, free-range, organic farm (air-conditioned accommodation, no doubt) suddenly realising that Christmas is comin’! I have heard much waffle about the benefits of a second chamber – bulwark of democracy, oversight of Dáil legislation, etc.
Can someone please tell me what has An Seanad done in the past or may do in the future for the taxpayer which is worth €20 million a year?
What else might the same taxpayer do with €20 million a year in these straitened times? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Over the 30-year period that I have taken an interest in politics it has seemed to me that the Seanad has never fulfilled its mandate and certainly does not deliver value for money. In this era of career politicians, the “reasonable” expectations of politicians to be “adequately” rewarded for their services to the State and to their political parties has meant that both houses have become member heavy and very expensive institutions to operate.
I think that in practice there is little to fear for democracy from the abolition of the Seanad and I am not particularly impressed by those who play the “fear” card as a reason for its retention (it can always be reintroduced again by referendum if sorely missed by the people).
The modern tools of communication and discussion (of which The Irish Times letters page is a great example, as are the many online forums) are a far more relevant and potentially powerful safeguard for democracy than those institutions currently in situ. Perhaps there once was a valid argument that politics and law-making should be left to the experts, but I would argue that this is certainly not now the case. People today are very well informed and have ready access to participative discussions which they increasingly exercise on a voluntary basis solely to share and discuss ideas that quickly lead to a broadly-based informed focus of opinion.
I believe that the empowerment of the people to be heard directly and continuously (and I don’t mean through elections every five years and media sponsored polls) is a greater democratic priority than the reform of ill-serving outdated institutions that are in the ownership of political parties and political dynasties.
Greater democratic progress has been made recently in many countries through harnessing the power of the Internet than is ever going to be made by refurnishing our Seanad. – Yours, etc,