NOTE: The following paper relates to the current debate in the Republic of Ireland about whether or not to abolish its upper house of parliament (the Seanad). I include it here both because I believe that it might be of interest to many of you and because the referendum occurs this Friday and I wanted to make the text available. This version is the latest of those I've delivered at public debates on the subject. My more extended treatment of the subject is available here and here. For more information on the referendum, see here. - SPD
FICTIONS AND FECKLESSNESS
Dr
Seán Patrick Donlan
I’m
not a party political man, but I’m a democrat to the bone. The Seanad is an
irredeemable institution and an insult to the principles of our republic. Its failings
include:
- Its thinly-disguised partisanship, under the
fiction of vocationalism
- Its explicit elitism, including special
representation for specific classes
- Its political cronyism, the power it provides
for political patronage
- Its distant, attenuated democracy; this
referendum is more genuinely democratic than any Seanad election
The
fact that the Seanad is also unnecessary and unfit for purpose is only more
damning.
For
a more egalitarian republic and a more direct democracy, the Seanad should be
abolished so that we can turn to more important matters, not least real reform
of the Dáil, our democratic chamber. But abolition is no mere sideshow and
serious parliamentary reform is dependent on sorting out its place in our
constitutional order.
In
short, the Seanad’s flaws are too fundamental to be fixed. We might tinker with
its vocationalism, elitism, or patronage, though few on the NO side are
committed to even these modest changes. But the Seanad is also redundant and
even anti-democratic. To meaningfully widen
its electorate would duplicate the Dáil’s popular mandate. The result could be
gridlock and conflict between the houses over which chamber actually represents
the people. And broadening the Seanad’s brief can only occur at the expense of
our democratic chamber. They’d hardly agree to this. Nor should they.
Along
with a majority of the people, both Government and opposition parties support abolition:
Fine Gael, Labour, Sinn Féin, and the Socialist Party. Not surprisingly, Fianna
Fáil, the coalition’s perennial opponent, opposes them. In fact, except for
Senators desperate to save their cushy seats, only other ghosts of Governments
past are allies (ie, the Green Party and the PDs). Indeed, it’s no coincidence
that those most sceptical of a more direct democracy, and of the Dáil itself, are
those most recently denied parliamentary power by the people. No wonder they
don’t trust them.
And,
to my deep disappointment, there are also well-meaning fellow progressives who
want to hold onto the Seanad to advance their politics without the hard and
messy work of real democracy. This odd alliance is at once patronising towards
the people and cynical in their campaign and condescending towards the people and
defeatist about our ability to govern without the minders of the Seanad. In
short, they don’t trust us or our democratic representatives.
In
the NO crowd’s campaign of misinformation, they’ve spared no effort in whipping
up paranoia about abolition, madly dashing everywhere to shout that ‘the sky is
falling, the sky is falling’.
I’m
not suggesting that the YES side is snowy white. It isn’t. The cost and number
of our parliamentarians, the public focus of the Government campaign, is
irrelevant. Our citizens would pay for good government. The coalition ought to
have done better and acted more honourably.
But
even today, the NO side has made vulgar comparisons between our Government and communism
and fascism, between our Taoiseach and Kim Jong-un or Mussolini. And ‘Democracy
Matters’, the leading group on the NO side, whose name is worthy of the
doublethink of George Orwell’s 1984, suggests
that a people’s free vote on the content of their Constitution is the
equivalent of trampling on that document. This isn’t to be taken seriously. The
amendment won’t bring constitutional crisis or autocracy or asteroids or plague
or the end of days. It’ll hardly be noticed.
For
example, the Seanad has never been a check on anyone. It was never meant to be
and it should not be. The President, the courts, and general elections are our
constitutional checks against legislative power. Most constitutional changes
related to the referendum are mere editing. The NO side’s scaremongering about
Articles 27 and 29 is spurious.
Similarly,
the belief that our whip system is too strong, and it is, has nothing to do
with the Seanad. The whip is a political, not a constitutional, matter. Insofar
as it can be changed, only Dáil reform is relevant. If anything, abolition will
remove a Taoiseach’s power to reward cronies with cushy jobs in Senate seats. And
there will be higher thresholds for impeachments of judges and the President. Those
are real, practical checks on the Government.
And
the Seanad is unnecessary. One house of parliament works well throughout the
world for states like ours. With minor alterations, unicameralism provides the
heightened scrutiny and deliberation in law-making that we desire. And it would
do so with a single mandate from the people through our genuinely democratic
general elections. There’d be no tug-of-war between chambers.
We
have bicameralism because the British did and because the Seanad once provided
a safe haven for southern unionists. Bicameralism is largely a holdover from a
feudal past. It isn’t made for democracy and in a modern state like ours, it
muddies the popular will, it doesn’t protect it. We have bicameralism only
because we’ve always had it. Its roots are
- pre-modern
aristocracies and elitism,
- colonial
copying around the world,
- inertia
and fear of change, and, as here,
- ‘jobs
for the boys’
Bicameralism
can make sense where it’s used to represent distinct territorial units or
cultural groups. But as a small, unitary republic, there’s no reason for it
here.
But
the biggest lie of the NO side is as much their self-deception as their con.
Not only is reform not on the ballot, but there has never been, and there is
not now, any consensus on reform. At least four different polls have confirmed this
in the last month, including one today. Those supporting reform make up 29% of
the population, only two points above the number of undecided in this
referendum; a mere 36% of those intending to vote. And those numbers have to be
divided between at least six reform schemes, the largest two of which are
fundamentally contradictory.
And
we should be very grateful because the NO side want to solve the real problems
of our republic with gimmicks and fantasy, even though that’s how we bungled
the creation of the Seanad back in the 1930s. This is exciting perhaps, but the
stuff of daydream and, with respect, the thought questions of undergraduate
exams. In addition, the best-known schemes of current Senators and their
patrician allies, still perpetuate the fiction of vocationalism, the elitism of
university set-asides, and political patronage. They’re barely reforms at all.
There most novel in their attempt to give special representation for special
interests, but this neo-vocationalism has succeeded nowhere.
Ironically,
the most radical scheme is that of Fianna Fáil itself, though no one is talking
about it. This is true because it’s unworkable and because it conflicts
fundamentally with the pet schemes of their own allies. But it hardly matters.
There’s no reform consensus and not a word of it will become law. And I say
this with optimism, the realism of a democrat who wants a more egalitarian
republic and a more direct democracy than any of the so-called reforms provide
for.
In
conclusion, the Seanad must be abolished. It’s elitist, undemocratic, and
wholly unnecessary. It shouldn’t be tolerated in a republic.
But
it’s important to remember that abolition takes effect after the next general
election. Government reforms already proposed, on Dáil committees and gender
quotas, have real practical, potential. But like others, I believe that more
can and should be done. It’ll be in the interest of the coalition, in the
aftermath of a YES result, to show itself to be serious about Dáil reform.
And
there’s so much potential for this, rooted not in speculative schemes, but in
established political science. I hope, in future, to work alongside those who
are now my opponents in this debate, to ensure meaningful Dáil reform. To hold
the coalition’s feet to the fire. And if this coalition, or future Governments
of any political persuasion, fails to deliver, we can always dump them, as we
did, belatedly perhaps, with the last Government. That’s as it should be.
That’s the ‘terrible beauty’ of democracy.
Our
republic doesn’t need Seanad minders, but a
more active and engaged citizenry. We need a more direct, unicameral
democracy—not buck-passing bicameralism—to pressure our public representatives
to do our bidding. Oversight of our politicians is our responsibility as
citizens. And, unlike the NO side, I have faith that the Irish people can do
this.
Don’t
be conned. A NO result is a vote for the status quo. Vote YES for real change,
and then make it happen.
Lawrence Friedman, ‘Introduction’
to Friedman
(ed) Law and the
Modern Condition: Literary and Historical Perspectives (2013)
