OPINION:ENDA KENNY and Éamon de Valera may sound like an unlikely political pairing but, in fact, they shared the same Big Idea on political reform – namely, the abolition of the Seanad.
Kenny made it an electoral issue. De Valera went further and after the Seanad challenged and rejected a cherished piece of his proposed legislation he took a bit of a hissy fit and, as he could do under the then constitutional arrangement, actually abolished the Seanad by a vote in the Dáil.
De Valera then ruled with a single-house parliament and declared that the new Constitution, which was then being formulated, would not have a second house.
With his significant Dáil majority de Valera was confident enough of his position. But very soon contrary views and informed debate began to gain ground and lead to rumblings of discontent.
The arguments for a second house of parliament reflect ordinary living where a second opinion is the norm. So, for instance, a solicitor will seek an opinion from a barrister, a doctor will ask the view of a consultant or an auditor will confirm the statements of the accountant.
That is also our constitutional model. A bicameral parliament where the Seanad is required to consider and reflect on the decisions of the Dáil and vice versa. A second opinion.
Even de Valera began to have second thoughts and though the ability to execute a U-turn with confidence is a defining characteristic of great statesmen, it was nonetheless a major surprise when de Valera said, in pre-modern parlance, that he was a listening taoiseach and that he had changed his mind after hearing the Dáil opposition arguments.
“Very well,” he said, “I hear you.”
Then he proposed a Seanad for the 1937 Constitution, reasoning to the Dáil “it is precisely on that basis that some Seanad, the best Seanad we can get . . . is still better than no Seanad at all.”
That’s when and how we got the model of the Seanad included in our Constitution. And a wonderful model it is, a civic forum with exciting potential for community voices and as a bridge between politics and the people, a genuine blueprint for participative democracy.
A check on the Dáil and – yes! – an irritating stone in the shoe of Government. But model and blueprint it remains, its potential never realised. Only after the people had voted for the Seanad in the Constitution did de Valera unveil his legislation for the election of senators.
Cleverly enough he gave the right to nominate Seanad candidates to an extraordinary wide range of bodies which in fairness reflected every aspect of Irish life. Altogether there are more than 100 and they include, inter alia, the Royal Irish Academy, the Irish Countrywomen’s Association, the Irish Wheelchair Association, accountancy bodies, employer groups and trade unions.
That should have produced an eclectic Seanad of experienced and knowledgeable senators, were it not for one thing: the nominating bodies were neutered. The law gave them the right to put the names on the ballot paper but did not, with the exception of graduates, give them the right to vote in the election.
That privilege was conferred on the members of local authorities throughout Ireland, resulting in the extraordinary situation where fewer than 1,000 people elect 43 of the 60 senators. To make matters doubly sure, the taoiseach retains the right to nominate 11 more as he chooses. The final six to make up the 60 are elected by university graduates, another embarrassing anomaly but still the only way in which Independent voices can be elected to the Seanad.
Unsurprisingly, it all went downhill from there and the Seanad became what it remains to this day: the craven creature of government, toothless, undemocratic and unrepresentative.
So how difficult would it be to produce an effective, representative, reformed Seanad?
Extraordinarily easy, in fact.
Constitutional referendums are not necessary. It could be delivered in a month by introducing a straightforward piece of legislation in the Dáil and Seanad. The current mess was the result of Dáil legislation. All that’s required is political will to repeal and replace it through new legislation.
The guiding principle must be that every citizen would have the right to vote in the Seanad election on a one-person one-vote basis.
The new legislation would extend voting to every citizen and could also confer voting rights on eligible Irish emigrants abroad and even include Northern Ireland residents. Local authority members could still elect senators, albeit a much smaller number.
The criticism of Taoiseach Enda Kenny’s views on the Seanad are largely misplaced because he is right in saying that it is not fit for purpose. However, the answer lies in reform rather than abolition and having kickstarted the debate he now has the wind of opportunity behind him to deliver the bright new Seanad people expected in 1937 but never got.
The alternative is a situation where the Taoiseach with the largest Dáil majority in the history of the State asks the people to abolish the only house of parliament that might query and challenge him.
Good luck with that one, Enda!
Joe O’Toole was an Independent member of the Seanad from 1987 to 2011