Billy Vaughan gives us an overview of the issues of representation in Seanad.
In 2013, the Irish public were given the opportunity of abolishing the upper house of the Oireachtas, known as the Seanad. The referendum resulted in a no vote in what was seen as a major embarrassment for the government. Promises were made to reform the upper house, but smarting from the defeat and with little other incentive to act, no further action was taken.
The Seanad is an institution that, save for a brief interlude in the 1930s, is as old as the Irish State. One of the main reasons it came into being was to give more representation to several diverse social groups such as farmers and minorities (such as Protestants). The intention was that an alternative chamber to the Dáil could be created, where political partisanship mattered less than honest debate based on principles.
Decades later, and the chamber has been gutted by decades of political neglect and indifference. Many would argue that in the present day, the upper house has become exactly what it set out to fight.
Today, it is an uneasy mixture of liberal firebrands nominated by the Taoiseach and the Universities, and failed or prospective Dáil candidates nominated by the panel system. This often results in the heated and often outrageous exchanges we have seen in recent years, which are great theatre, but get the debate nowhere. In theory, most Seanad members should be experts in a certain field, and most of the others should be representatives of certain social groups. It is supposed to allow the exchange of debate and information between two groups who might otherwise find getting elected difficult and lend a different perspective to the legislative process. Unfortunately, in reality it has become a mere rubber stamp.
“It is supposed to allow the exchange of debate and information between two groups who might otherwise find getting elected difficult and lend a different perspective to the legislative process. Unfortunately, in reality it has become a mere rubber stamp.”
The principle of ‘one man one vote’ is an issue that is very relevant to Seanad reforms, considering that it is possible for a university graduate to have votes in other areas. A working group report from last year has recommended that graduates choose between retaining their university vote or choose to elect the new panels. Senator Ivana Bacik is a supporter of these reforms. “University graduates could opt for a vote on the University panel instead of the National language, culture, literature, art and education panel,” she said, cancelling their perceived unfair democratic advantage.
Representation of minority interests also feature highly in the aims of those who are pro-reform. The Seanad, according to them, could once again be transformed into an open forum for groups who may find it difficult to succeed (or cannot succeed) at the ballot box, such as travellers or the Irish diaspora.
Of course, major reform in how the Seanad is elected would be needed in order to open up the institution to other social groups. Universal suffrage did once apply to the Seanad, but only for its first ever election in 1925. The process was seen as so cumbersome that the entire system was thrown out in favour of the obscure nomination and panel system that we have today.
The five vocational panels, in particular, have been the subject of serious criticism and calls for its reform are almost unanimous. One such proponent is Senator Bacik, who believes that many improvements can be made. “Some provision should be made for gender balance in the panels,” she says, “for example by reserving 50 per cent of the seats in each panel for each gender.” She also believes that universal suffrage to the vocational panels is the key to making it more inclusive. “All those entitled to be on the local election register should also be entitled to vote in the Seanad general election. Each person entitled to vote would have a separate vote for candidates on each of the five panels.” She says that a two part approach is needed for reform. “I believe that the constitutional convention should be reconvened to consider changes through constitutional amendment, and other changes can be made through legislation alone.”
Ostensibly professional bodies representing thousands of Irish employees are supposed to play a big role in the make up of the Seanad, giving a voice to workers who are not university graduates. “There are indeed a large number of professional and other bodies with the power of nomination but they have no power to vote and no independent representative has ever been elected through this system,” says Senator David Norris. He says he recalls one occasion “on which the President of the Royal Irish Academy was nominated by that body but did not receive one single vote.”
Another area that many agree needs reform is the university panel. Currently only Trinity College and the National University of Ireland can elect members, excluding the thousands that are graduates of Institutes of Technology and other third level institutions. “The representative element needs to be strengthened by extending the franchise to other third level institutions,” says Norris. However, he believes that including all post-secondary education in one massive “super constituency” would create huge numbers of voters that would turn the process into a political one. He suggests a split between Dublin and the rest of Ireland. “This would keep these constituencies within manageable proportions while extending their representative capacity.”
Something seen as a major obstacle to the overt purpose of the Seanad as a chamber is the fact that its elections take place 90 days after that of Dáil Éireann, allowing many failed Dáil candidates to be co-opted in. There is a “need to break the link between Dáil and Seanad elections” by “legislation providing that the Seanad election takes place on the same day as a Dáil election”, according to Ivana Bacik.
Senator Norris proposes a different solution, that of fixed five year Seanad terms. “This would end the scandal of situations where every high-office holder in the Seanad had all been rejected in the preceding elections.”
Overall, it is clear to most people that the Seanad is in dire need of serious reform. Most agree that the chamber can become a tool for a more socially inclusive democracy in Ireland. Unfortunately political movement on the issue is likely to remain stagnant for some time.
Advertisements