The fascinating world of Seanad reform

And so the counting has begun following the elections, such as they were, to the perennially ignored talking shop that is Seanad Eireann. The campaign to woo the electorate of a few thousand politicians and university graduates has largely been ignored by the media- and for good reason. No body of well paid and intelligent people is as irrelevant to Irish society as the upper house of parliament.

The nature of the Seanad is such that it is almost always controlled by the government of the day, although an opposition majority would barely impact at all, since the scent of real power has not been detected in the chamber since 1936, when the Free State Senate attempted to stand in the way of De Valera’s constitutional juggernaut and was abolished. As Vincent Browne notes, 12 reports on reform have been tabled since its reincarnation in 1937, but not one acted upon. This is not surprising, given that a weak and compliant senate is handy for any government, but the rest of us might be forgiven for wondering why we are paying for such a lacklustre body.

Better no upper house at all than an unreformed one- but what should a new-look Seanad be like?

Two seperate changes are needed: one in relation to form, the other in relation to function. The latter I will deal with in another post; my concern here is the manner in which Senators are elected. As things stand, 6 Senators are elected by the graduates of TCD and NUI, but no other third-level institution, despite a constitutional amendment in 1979 to make this possible. 11 are appointed directly by the Taoiseach, ensuring a built-in government majority in most cases. 43 are elected by councillors, TDs and outgoing Senators in an archaic system based on the vogue 1930′s concept of corporatism.

Each of the five panels is supposed to represent a societal grouping, ensuring that those elected represent specific interests rather than geographic locations, on the face of it an interesting idea. In practice, however, the limited electorate votes along party political lines, and so whoever gets a party’s blessing on a particular panel gets in. Furthermore, there is no requirement to have any expertise in Culture, Agriculture etc, rendering the vocational aspect redundant.

There is a case to be made for the Seanad to be directly elected by the people, as John Gormley seems keen on. Certainly some form of direct election is desirable, if only to focus public and media interest on an otherwise ignored body. The problem is that there is an inherent tension between democratic legitimacy on the one hand, and the protection of minorities on the other.

In constitutional theory, similar issues arise in relation to the power of the courts: if judges have the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional, how zealous or reticent should they be in using this power, given that the people, through their directly elected representatives, have approved the measure? The tension that must permanently exist between the will of the majority and the rights of minorities is known in the United States as the Madisonian Dilemma, and is no less relevant here.

There is no perfect solution, but so long as we recognise that minority interests should be catered for, a new electoral system will have to retain some undemocratic elements. With this in mind, and considering the excellent records of the Senators they have provided in the past, the university seats should be retained. However, there is no good reason not to extend the vote to other university graduates. The simplest solution would probably to create a new constituency for DCU, DIT and the rest with two seats to fill, reducing Trinity and NUI to two seats also.

Taoiseach’s appointees were simply Dev’s way of ensuring that he or future leaders wouldn’t be hampered in his work by a renegade upper house. Appointed members could nonetheless fulfill a vital modern role in getting minority voices, unlikely to make it in an election, into the Seanad chamber. A constitutional amendment compelling the Taoiseach to nominate on the basis of distinct categories would be perfect. That way we get not 11 failed or ambitious Dail candidates, but rather Senators representing Travellers, the disabled, immigrants, the diaspora, or whatever you’re having yourself.

Independent voices guaranteed are thus; so what about the rest? Well, a little more democracy never hurt anyone, and an upper house which is mostly elected by national franchise has more legitimacy than the present arrangement. Besides, it shields the university seats from the charge of elitism if everyone else gets a vote for the Seanad as well, albeit in a different constituency. The last cross-party report on Seanad reform recommends that 20 be elected in a single national constituency by councillors, TDs and outgoing senators.

The remaining seats (32 under their model, which envisages a rise in seat numbers to 65) would be done under a national list system. This latter has merit in that it provides for election, but not in the same manner as for the Dail, which should avoid producing a carbon copy of the lower house. In fact, I would propose that all non-university or Taoiseach’s gift seats be filled in this way- cut out the middlemen, and let the electorate have their say directly. With so many seats now to be filled, a few constituencies might be better than a national one, but these should be as large as possible, maybe equivalent to the European Parliament boundaries. If nothing else, Seanad politics should remain above the level of the parish pump.