Democracy Matters: Seanad Reform Proposals

Scofflaw · 22-01-2014 2:45am #1

The Democracy Matters group has published a set of reform proposals, which are available here: http://senatorkatherinezappone.ie/files/If_There_Is_A_wll_to_Reform_There.pdf

A brief summary of the proposals and points in the document:

First, that reforming the Seanad does not require a further referendum, since only the methods of election, the non-geographical nature of constituencies, and the panel structure of the Seanad is hard-coded into Bunreacht. Universal suffrage is not excluded by Bunreacht.

Second, that the government's proposal to reform only the 6 University seats leaves 90% of the Seanad unchanged.

Third, no matter what mechanism is chosen to elect the Seanad, the powers available to it under Bunreacht do not allow for a blocking second chamber.

Fourth, six basic principles are felt by DM to be universally acceptable:

Democracy Matters has identified six basic consensus principles with widespread political support which are as follows:
 Universal Citizen Suffrage
 One Person One Vote
 Gender Equality
 A Vote for Citizens in Northern Ireland
 A Vote For Citizens In The Diaspora
 A Role For Seanad Eireann In EU Legislation and Scrutiny

On the second point, only graduates would be able to vote on the Universities Panel, but would have to choose whether to exercise a single vote there or for another panel.

On the fourth point, the qualification for a Seanad vote for NI residents would be that they qualify for Irish citizenship - they would not be required to hold Irish citizenship.

Details, obviously, in the linked document. Realistic proposals? Universally acceptable? And, most importantly, likely to see the light of day?

Personally, I see a lot to like there. I don't know how it would all work out, but it would be interesting to see whether it offered real improvement.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo · 22-01-2014 10:29am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Universally acceptable?

Self-evidently not, since we've had some extended debates here on whether to extend the franchise to non-resident citizens (and that wasn't even contemplating non-resident non-citizens).

spank_inferno · 22-01-2014 10:33am

Extending the vote to non-resident, non-citizens could double the electorate.

Why bother for a token powerless figure head?

Besides, did the people of Ireland not vote for the status quo?

Scofflaw · 22-01-2014 10:54am

spank_inferno wrote: »

Extending the vote to non-resident, non-citizens could double the electorate.

Why bother for a token powerless figure head?

Besides, did the people of Ireland not vote for the status quo?

I don't think anyone voted for the status quo - that's just sour grapes. Nor is the Seanad actually powerless or token.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Manach · 22-01-2014 11:04am

While there should be a more open and effective functionally of the Seanad as a oversight body in the Madisonian Checks and Balances sense, Gender equality in the democratic sense goes to far. It acts as a basis for social engineering that undermines the democratic nature of a party to pick the best candidate for the people, irrespective of gender. Hence I'd be skeptical of any group proposing this, Gov or opposition.

RandomName2 · 27-01-2014 12:17pm

I think the suffrage consideration is the single least important issue in relation to the Seanad, with the Seanad being the least important area of reform required within Irish politics. But just a note on the proposed reforms - why you'd give people outside the jurisdiction of the Seanad the power to elect members of the Seanad is beyond me.

dulpit · 27-01-2014 3:21pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

First, that reforming the Seanad does not require a further referendum, since only the methods of election, the non-geographical nature of constituencies, and the panel structure of the Seanad is hard-coded into Bunreacht. Universal suffrage is not excluded by Bunreacht.

Fair enough, although that shouldn't preclude the possibility of further changes which would require a referendum being put forward.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Second, that the government's proposal to reform only the 6 University seats leaves 90% of the Seanad unchanged.

Third, no matter what mechanism is chosen to elect the Seanad, the powers available to it under Bunreacht do not allow for a blocking second chamber.

Fairy nuf.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Universal Citizen Suffrage
One Person One Vote

Agreed, and I assume nobody would have an issue with this.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Gender Equality

I assume they mean quotas? I'm utterly opposed to quota systems in anyway, positive discrimination is still discrimination. Also, if you go down the route of trying for a balance by gender, do you also do same for religion? Sexual orientation? Etc?

Scofflaw wrote: »

A Vote for Citizens in Northern Ireland
A Vote For Citizens In The Diaspora

I'm more hesitant on these, unless there is a specific Northern Ireland/Overseas panel for them to vote in (which I understand would require a referendum).

Scofflaw wrote: »

A Role For Seanad Eireann In EU Legislation and Scrutiny

Fairy nuf.

One thing not mentioned is the role of party politics in all this. I think that there should be some sort of rule that nobody can get into Seanad if they ran for the Dáil at same time, as this would stop it being a resting group for losers.

I assume the Taoiseach's nominees are in the constitution? Be interesting if you could also reform them.

Scofflaw · 27-01-2014 7:07pm

dulpit wrote: »

I assume they mean quotas? I'm utterly opposed to quota systems in anyway, positive discrimination is still discrimination. Also, if you go down the route of trying for a balance by gender, do you also do same for religion? Sexual orientation? Etc?

I think the argument there is that 50% of the population being persistently under-represented at the political level is a biggish issue. There is no other similarly sized "minority".

I'm not as a general rule a fan of quotas myself, but there is an argument for them as a 'blockage cleaner'. That is, there are probably institutional and institutionalised impediments to female politicians, some of which probably don't even get thought about. An enforced quota has the positive effect of discovering and forcing removal of such impediments. Like a power hose for drain cleaning, you run it for a while, and then stop, letting presumed merit become once again the yardstick, but hopefully with the concealed speed bumps for one sex washed away for good.

dulpit wrote: »

I'm more hesitant on these, unless there is a specific Northern Ireland/Overseas panel for them to vote in (which I understand would require a referendum).

That's a good idea, but yes it would.

dulpit wrote: »

One thing not mentioned is the role of party politics in all this. I think that there should be some sort of rule that nobody can get into Seanad if they ran for the Dáil at same time, as this would stop it being a resting group for losers.

A Dáil term moratorium, say?

dulpit wrote: »

I assume the Taoiseach's nominees are in the constitution? Be interesting if you could also reform them.

I think they are in Bunreacht. They do seem an obvious target for reform, but the idea, after all, is not to create an oppositional second chamber but a critical one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

GaelMise · 27-01-2014 11:38pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think they are in Bunreacht. They do seem an obvious target for reform, but the idea, after all, is not to create an oppositional second chamber but a critical one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The nominees are in the constitution, but there is nothing to stop the Taoiseach allowing the people to elect a panel of 11 candidates for him to appoint.

Tim Robbins · 28-01-2014 2:03pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Democracy Matters has identified six basic consensus principles with widespread political support which are as follows:
 Universal Citizen Suffrage
 One Person One Vote
 Gender Equality
 A Vote for Citizens in Northern Ireland
 A Vote For Citizens In The Diaspora
 A Role For Seanad Eireann In EU Legislation and Scrutiny

Sounds like the Dail. We don't need a Seanad.

For Reals · 28-01-2014 4:29pm

You can tart it up any way you like but the Seanad, similarly with the House of Lords, is in place lest the common democratically unwashed run amok.
That was the point of a second house.
If we are unhappy with the government, we vote them out. Tacking on a second unelected body to wag fingers is a waste of money, time and an insult to a so called democratic society.
People voted to retain the Seanad as part protest vote part believing bull**** regarding Enda wanting more power.
Abolishing the Seanad was one of the few positives the pratts actually followed up on post election.
We need clear regulatory laws/rules regarding what the Government can and can't do without a Dail vote. Simple.
An unelected undemocratic body has no place in a democracy. Simple as.

Scofflaw · 28-01-2014 5:07pm

For Reals wrote: »

You can tart it up any way you like but the Seanad, similarly with the House of Lords, is in place lest the common democratically unwashed run amok.
That was the point of a second house.
If we are unhappy with the government, we vote them out. Tacking on a second unelected body to wag fingers is a waste of money, time and an insult to a so called democratic society.
People voted to retain the Seanad as part protest vote part believing bull**** regarding Enda wanting more power.
Abolishing the Seanad was one of the few positives the pratts actually followed up on post election.
We need clear regulatory laws/rules regarding what the Government can and can't do without a Dail vote. Simple.
An unelected undemocratic body has no place in a democracy. Simple as.

Hmm. Independent scrutiny and second opinions not your thing, then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

For Reals · 28-01-2014 6:04pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. Independent scrutiny and second opinions not your thing, then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

In this guise, no.
Do I want my so called guardians or watchdogs to be unelected privileged connected private citizens, many of which are far removed from the majority of the day to day of the Irish populace? No, I don't.
Why not, as also promised, simply add some checks and balances to our democratically elected body?

Scofflaw · 28-01-2014 6:07pm

For Reals wrote: »

In this guise, no.
Do I want my so called guardians or watchdogs to be unelected privileged connected private citizens, many of which are far removed from the majority of the day to day of the Irish populace? No, I don't.

IN which case what's wrong with the universal suffrage idea?

For Reals wrote: »

Why not, as also promised, simply add some checks and balances to our democratically elected body?

Well, hell yes - but this is about Seanad reform. Could start a thread about preferred Dáil reforms.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand · 28-01-2014 7:40pm

The reform package seems fairly irrelevant and self interested. It seems to focus on how senators are elected with a trinket given to all the various "MOPE"s. The reformers credentials are demonstrated by the document being at pains to stress that no one need worry, the Seanad will still be a toothless job-bridge scheme for various insiders, failed politicians and former quango retirees.

But the Seanad was specifically designed in a manner that it could not rival the Dail
or consistently obstruct the will of the people expressed though the Dail.

The Seanad has no constitutional part in electing the Government, holding it
accountable on a day to day basis, or removing the Government. Dail Eireann has
complete supremacy in budgetary matters and Money Bills.

Government and Ministers are not directly accountable to the Seanad, and Senators
may not table parliamentary questions to them.

The power of the Seanad to delay legislation is limited to 90 days and even that
period can be further reduced in the procedure laid down in Article 24.

It is highly likely that a considerable number of Senators who are Government
supporters will always be elected by the citizens. In addition, the Taoiseach has the
right to appoint 11 members of the Seanad and to nominate two members of the
Seanad to be members of the Government.

Bolding is mine - a very odd statement. They are calling for reforms which would presumably allow some Senators at least to claim that they do have a mandate. But they still seem to believe that mandate would be meaningless if clashing with the government of the day. So much for representation.

All in all, these "reforms" could pass or not pass and as the reformers themselves say it will have absolutely no impact on how the country is governed.

@Scofflaw

Hmm. Independent scrutiny and second opinions not your thing, then?

As the reformers seem desperate to stress, you can get as much independent scrutiny and second opinions from an opinion piece in the paper as from the Senate at a much reduced price and greater accessibility to citizens.

For Reals · 28-01-2014 7:54pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

IN which case what's wrong with the universal suffrage idea?

Well, hell yes - but this is about Seanad reform. Could start a thread about preferred Dáil reforms.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Just saying, why reform at all? Scrap and reform the Dail as eluded to by Enda and chums pre-election.

Scofflaw · 28-01-2014 7:55pm

Sand wrote:

As the reformers seem desperate to stress, you can get as much independent scrutiny and second opinions from an opinion piece in the paper as from the Senate at a much reduced price and greater accessibility to citizens.

Not really, I'm afraid. Irish media have an absolutely abysmal record on that. It's hard to say whether the shallowness of their 'analysis' trumps their subservience to government and their lack of interest in accountability as the main factor in that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 28-01-2014 7:57pm

For Reals wrote: »

Just saying, why reform at all? Scrap and reform the Dail as eluded to by Enda and chums pre-election.

Because the Seanad is capable of being more independent of the government than the Dáil. The Dáil automatically has a government majority, and no matter what reforms we put in place that obviously isn't going to change.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand · 28-01-2014 8:03pm

Not really, I'm afraid. Irish media have an absolutely abysmal record on that. It's hard to say whether the shallowness of their 'analysis' trumps their subservience to government and their lack of interest in accountability as the main factor in that.

No worse than the Senate though over the same time period which was my point. Donnie Cassidy was not a fearless scourge of Bertie or Cowen. The reformers are keen to stress they will continue not interfering with the government.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because the Seanad is capable of being more independent of the government than the Dáil. The Dáil automatically has a government majority, and no matter what reforms we put in place that obviously isn't going to change.

That's a bit pessimistic. The PAC is giving the government headaches over the last few weeks, and a simple reform like secret voting in the Dail and ensuring Ministers could not hold seats in the Dail would break the governments stranglehold over the TDs.

The Dail is where the reform needs to be. Senate reform is distraction and sideshow.

Scofflaw · 29-01-2014 12:06am

Sand wrote: »

No worse than the Senate though over the same time period which was my point. Donnie Cassidy was not a fearless scourge of Bertie or Cowen. The reformers are keen to stress they will continue not interfering with the government.

Well, they're stressing the constitutional role of the Seanad, which can't be changed without a referendum. If a government is wiling to hold a reform referendum, all bets are off.

And, sure, the Seanad has indeed been supine, but that's the argument for reform.

Sand wrote: »

That's a bit pessimistic. The PAC is giving the government headaches over the last few weeks,

In its first incarnation, yes. I'm not sure the government realised that the dog would bite them.

Sand wrote: »

and a simple reform like secret voting in the Dail and ensuring Ministers could not hold seats in the Dail would break the governments stranglehold over the TDs.

I do like that one, but it also means that the electorate can't tell how their TD voted - on the other hand, currently, it doesn't matter.

Sand wrote: »

The Dail is where the reform needs to be. Senate reform is distraction and sideshow.

A sideshow, yes - not really a distraction. If we can reform one, and can be seen to reform one, people may realise that reform of the political system isn't either unfeasible or mad - which they should already realise, since we constantly do see political reform in Ireland, but all in favour of centralising power to the executive (and even within that),

cordially,
Scofflaw

GarIT · 29-01-2014 1:09am

Am I correct in thinking that a major role of the seanad is to advise the government. If that is the case I think the existance of the Seanad is only acceptable if it is a minimum requirement for each member to have a masters degree in an area relevant to government.

Scofflaw · 29-01-2014 1:07pm

GarIT wrote: »

Am I correct in thinking that a major role of the seanad is to advise the government. If that is the case I think the existance of the Seanad is only acceptable if it is a minimum requirement for each member to have a masters degree in an area relevant to government.

It's not quite "advise", but, yes, the idea is that the Seanad is composed of 'elders' from particular areas of Irish life, who scrutinise proposed legislation and suggest amendments based on their experience.

So a Master's degree would not necessarily be either necessary or adequate - you would exclude people with 40 years practical experience in favour of someone whose knowledge of an area might be purely academic. The government can hire such people.

Again, that the government can hire experts (or use civil service experts) might seem like an argument against the Seanad, but there's a difference between the government paying someone to provide input and someone elected to provide that input.

cordially,
Scofflaw

GarIT · 29-01-2014 2:06pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not quite "advise", but, yes, the idea is that the Seanad is composed of 'elders' from particular areas of Irish life, who scrutinise proposed legislation and suggest amendments based on their experience.

So a Master's degree would not necessarily be either necessary or adequate - you would exclude people with 40 years practical experience in favour of someone whose knowledge of an area might be purely academic. The government can hire such people.

Again, that the government can hire experts (or use civil service experts) might seem like an argument against the Seanad, but there's a difference between the government paying someone to provide input and someone elected to provide that input.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't think experience alone is good enough for government. Ideally anyone in any sort of advisory role would have both an education and experience. There are things that you will learn from education that you won't get from experience, there are also things you will learn from experience that you could never learn in college. I think the minimum requirement of the masters should be set and then we can pick the best candidate from that.

The question then gets raised about pushing older people that didn't go to college but know the job out. My response to that is any college will allow you to sign up for a degree, skip the lectures and just show up for the exams. If someone has learnt enough from experience they could pass the exams easily. I also know people that have done a job for approx five years and still couldn't even be considered competent at the job, the purpose of a degree is to prove competence.

Senators also need to be given roles and to know their place. Each senator should be told you're specialised in area x therefore you can lead discussions there. I know it's an extreme example but Fedelma H.E. Should never have been allowed speak about Facebook or the internet, she didn't have a clue about what she was saying, what use is the Seanad when anyone no matter how unqualified can speak out about anything.

The Seanad needs to be made up of clever people that can actually make good decisions, not just Joe Public that has no idea how legislation works and have no clue about the area they are discussing which at the moment is a minimum of 50% of the senators. What good are the group of failed politicians with qualifications in English and teaching that we have now?

EDIT: I also believe that some who has just graduated with an economics masters is much more qualified to give advice than someone who is a primary school teacher but spent 12 years in the Dept. of Finance.

Scofflaw · 29-01-2014 5:14pm

GarIT wrote: »

I don't think experience alone is good enough for government. Ideally anyone in any sort of advisory role would have both an education and experience. There are things that you will learn from education that you won't get from experience, there are also things you will learn from experience that you could never learn in college. I think the minimum requirement of the masters should be set and then we can pick the best candidate from that.

The question then gets raised about pushing older people that didn't go to college but know the job out. My response to that is any college will allow you to sign up for a degree, skip the lectures and just show up for the exams. If someone has learnt enough from experience they could pass the exams easily. I also know people that have done a job for approx five years and still couldn't even be considered competent at the job, the purpose of a degree is to prove competence.

Senators also need to be given roles and to know their place. Each senator should be told you're specialised in area x therefore you can lead discussions there. I know it's an extreme example but Fedelma H.E. Should never have been allowed speak about Facebook or the internet, she didn't have a clue about what she was saying, what use is the Seanad when anyone no matter how unqualified can speak out about anything.

The Seanad needs to be made up of clever people that can actually make good decisions, not just Joe Public that has no idea how legislation works and have no clue about the area they are discussing which at the moment is a minimum of 50% of the senators. What good are the group of failed politicians with qualifications in English and teaching that we have now?

EDIT: I also believe that some who has just graduated with an economics masters is much more qualified to give advice than someone who is a primary school teacher but spent 12 years in the Dept. of Finance.

Well, yes and no. The Seanad role isn't advisory in the normal sense - that is, it's not the job of Senators to advise the government on policy. It's scrutiny of proposed legislation, which is a different role, because it doesn't involve formulating policy, but trying to take account of the realities of the impact of legislation.

In that respect, a degree is not necessarily the best measure, because one can easily (and commonly, even) have a degree without having any experience of the day to day realities of the trade or industry that degree relates to - and that's when we're talking about trades and industries for which there is a relevant degree in the first place (given the Seanad cannot actually make amendments to financial legislation, the example of an economics degree is not the best).

I don't think I'd agree that someone with a degree in Retail knows more about the retail industry than someone with 20 years business owner experience in retail, nor that someone with an Ag degree is better suited to legislative scrutiny than someone with extensive experience of farming.

Having said that, I agree that the the spectacle of Senators talking about issues they clearly haven't any clue about is always unpleasant, but all parliamentarians do need to be free to talk about whatever they feel they want to talk about, and I wouldn't agree with limiting them to any kind of specialist area. The loud raspberries that come from expert commentators when politicians do that kind of thing are hopefully an adequate antidote, although of course they may not reach everyone that the original message reached.

cordially,
Scofflaw

For Reals · 29-01-2014 5:49pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because the Seanad is capable of being more independent of the government than the Dáil. The Dáil automatically has a government majority, and no matter what reforms we put in place that obviously isn't going to change.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's like saying one privately elected body to look after the affairs of the public should the democratically elected body wield too much authority.

As unfortunate as our options are we choose the government, for good or bad, they have the mandate and should not be answerable to a private members club, which to be fair is generally ruling party heavy anyway.

Scofflaw · 30-01-2014 1:50am

For Reals wrote: »

That's like saying one privately elected body to look after the affairs of the public should the democratically elected body wield too much authority.

As unfortunate as our options are we choose the government, for good or bad, they have the mandate and should not be answerable to a private members club, which to be fair is generally ruling party heavy anyway.

They're not answerable to them, though, for precisely that reason. The role of the Seanad is to bring expert scrutiny from non government, non civil servants to the legislative process.

I'd agree that packing the Seanad with party faithful runs against that, but, again, I'd favour reforming the Seanad. I don't see that it's a bad idea in itself, any more than most upper houses.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand · 30-01-2014 7:45pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, they're stressing the constitutional role of the Seanad, which can't be changed without a referendum. If a government is wiling to hold a reform referendum, all bets are off.

And, sure, the Seanad has indeed been supine, but that's the argument for reform.

Yes - but not these reforms. These reforms will do nothing to address it. The "reformers" are keen to stress that what they propose will still leave the Senate toothless.

These reforms are fairly inoffensive - I don't object to them but I'm left wondering "What's the point?"

A sideshow, yes - not really a distraction. If we can reform one, and can be seen to reform one, people may realise that reform of the political system isn't either unfeasible or mad - which they should already realise, since we constantly do see political reform in Ireland, but all in favour of centralising power to the executive (and even within that),

I believe these sort of reforms will have exactly the opposite effect - dampening real reform. They allow the government to claim to have "reformed" the Senate - job done - but with no reform of how Ireland is governed, which ought to be the priority.

The key argument for abolishing the Senate was that it would force significant Dail reform, and would require constitutional change which is so badly needed. As it turned out that was rejected for alarmist reasons , in favour of what I believe was at best a naive ideal of reforming the Senate, advocated by the likes of Democracy Matters.

Democracy Matters have now produced this document explaining the reforms they envision and they are so lukewarm and meaningless that you could pass them tomorrow and no one would notice. Certainly not the government. I think that demonstrates the true value of the argument to retain and reform the Senate, and what a missed chance the referendum to abolish the Senate was.

We are likely to end up with an unreformed Dail and some deckchairs moved about in the Senate. Its quite disappointing given that most people agree that reform of the government is required.

Scofflaw · 31-01-2014 12:02am

Well put!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Democracy Matters: Seanad Reform Proposals

Comments