Seanad Referendum 2013: The Day After

Foreword: A lot has been said and written  about the Seanad over the last five years. Although some ideas seem consistently repetitive, arguments vary from ‘it is a waste of funds’ to ‘it is a pillar on the way to progress’ and  ‘I do not do politics’; we have heard it all.

As someone who has spent their life divided between two countries, and equally affected by the laws of both, I would like to voice my concern. The similarities in the political field of both Greece and Ireland are quite disturbing, and seeing the path the former is on, it is worth exploring what is keeping the latter from following. Albeit similar, though, there is one substantial difference; Greece has a unicameral assembly.

Is trom Seanad i bhfad

*1

Parliaments with two Houses are a historical consequence that did not bear much political thought. Initially the parliament was the establishment where the king or queen would meet the powerful (ie the creme of the social hierarchy -ecclesiastics, title bearers etc) and, through negotiation and adequate scheming, share the wealth and powers of the State. As time went by though, lower social layers penetrated the parliament – tenants such as merchants, tradesmen or established farmers, and this of course was to no one’s liking. It was not long before the parliamentary assembly was torn in two houses, one for the ‘Lords’ and another for the ‘Commoners’.

In other European countries, with the passage of time, monarchies were either retained to a symbolic role or abolished. Due to their allegedly non-democratic origins the upper houses followed suit and were swiftly replaced by unicameral legislatures.

IRISH FREE STATE

Surprisingly Ireland, in the current absence of royal rule, has a bicameral assembly; for Ireland this was not some sort of inheritance from the former occupier, instead it was a deliberate and conscious choice, introduced with its first official Constitution of Saorstat Eireann in 1922. Article 82 was constructed to ensure ‘representation for groups and parties not the adequately represented in Dail Eireann’. What this actually meant was that the nation was provided with a Seanad made primarily of non-Catholics and ex-unionists, attempting to balance off the formation of the Dail.

That Seanad is a great point of reference for two reasons:

The King is dead …

… long live the King! Question is, what will the extent of his powers be?

Some souls wish for the abolition of the Seanad, it is convenient no doubt, but please don’t claim recession and budget cuts to justify your purpose.

If anybody knows who brought Greece to the financial and political state of today, please raise your hands; it’s the uncensored, unscrutinised, uncontrolled Parliament. One would be a fool to think that the Irish apple would fall far, should the Seanad be abolished. I will put it bluntly, the Seanad keeps any half-wits on a leash, if the lower house wakes up one day with the desire to play poker, the upper house shakes the finger and says “no Tommy, you shouldn’t do that Tommy”. Of course the Oireachtas, as the untamed teenager that it is, will probably jump off the window as soon as mammy Seanad closes the door behind her, but at least there is the probability of making the immature child reconsider.

It doesn’t constitute a barrier, but at least it’s a filter, a well educated one for the matter. And do we need filters!

John Coakley (UCD) and Michael Laver (Trinity) provided the All-Party Oireachtas Committee with a brilliant report back in 1996 with reform suggestions and historical information in favour of the importance of its role,  which could easily be the foundation for an actual reform.

Per the Committee,  the hazards of today can be bypassed following simple steps, the first being the legislative procedure; should bills reach the Seanad first and go through their first three stages inhouse, then it will make matters much simpler for the Dáil, especially if one takes into account the abundancy of social layers and educational backgrounds that form the lower house. The Seanad could greatly assist the Dáil in drawing up reports for statutory instruments, carrying out reviews of proposed programmes, in other words, take a huge burden off the shoulders of the TDs, giving them more time to deal with the everyday problems of their constituencies.

I am amazed that this might sound unreasonable to some. I’d like to point out that part of the Seanad is indirectly elected. I would also like to quote the Constitution Review Group some 15 years ago, especially since many claim Ireland is now reliving the 90s:

“The rationale for having two houses of parliament in a unitary state is based on two important features of any mature democracy. The first is the need to take account of political interests that may not be adequately represented in the main house; the second is the need for some final review of legislative proposals before they become binding on all.”

I rest my case.