Giving the President and the Seanad more power?

Vivara

Hey Guys,

Given my interest in politics and our current *cough* problem, I'm always looking at ways of improving the system...

Rumour has it that President McAleese is absolutely furious with Cowen and the state of the country. She can't say a word or directly criticise the government — well she could, but that, I'm sure, would be be frowned upon. Apparently, she is waiting until closer to her term expiration to do just that.

Looking at Obama in the U.S. and how difficult it is for him to get anything done, between the House and the Senate, it's very easy to come to the conclusion that Taoisigh have it too easy... everything is passed in the Dáil (even though it does close on occasions!) and if a party member does not vote the way their leader wants, they face expulsion.

The way I see it is that the U.S. system is very different and perhaps extreme, but this idea of checks and balances is something we should look into.

Getting rid of Seanad Éireann would be going the opposite way. I believe that it should be given more power... perhaps maybe 25 of 60 Senators must vote for a bill —*if not, then it simply isn't passed.

The way Senators are appointed is also ridiculous and the general consensus is that Senators are not well respected. What do you think of giving each county two directly-elected Senators and then giving the Taoiseach eight nominations for a total of 60? And elections at the same time as the Presidential Elections (so every seven years). Maybe staggered elections where one-third of the seats are up for election ever X years?

Secondly, to the President... I think it is ludicrous that a president cannot address the nation without permission from the government. I think the President should be making weekly (maybe monthly) addresses — giving confidence to the people of Ireland who are in dire need of someone to look up to. I also think that the President should be allowed to speak in Dáil and the Seanad as the President of the European Commission can do in the European Parliament. Finally, I think that she should be allowed dismiss the Taoiseach at her own discretion if the Seanad has a two-thirds vote of no-confidence in him.

So to go over my ideas—

1. Giving the Senate more power (25 of 60 Senators must vote for a bill to pass it)
2. Giving each county two directly-elected Senators and reducing the Taoiseach's nomination to just eight.
3. Perhaps elections ever seven years or maybe staggered elections?
4. Give the President freedom to criticise the government and address the nation as often as he wishes
5. Allow the President to speak in both houses of the Oireachtas as ordinary members do — similar to the European Parliament and José Manuel Barroso
6. Give the President the option to dismiss the Taoiseach if he commands less than a less than a third of the Seanad

I realise that many of my ideas are very extreme and probably very flawed, too. But I'm interested to hear your opinions and what you think of the Taoiseach's command of the country despite the support of the people. I realise that he has the support of the Dáil and I think that should be respected... I just think it shouldn't be as easy any more.

So, enough of my babbling. Your thoughts?

Ed.

Lenny Lovett

1. I don't believe the seanad serves any useful purpose. It is merely a Toffs debating society, albeit an expensive one, and should be abolished as soon as possible.

2. Can anyone quote any legislation that states that the President cannot comment or address the nation? I don't believe there is any such regulation. She's never been backward at coming forward. I think she's happy to spend her last year in the lap of luxury and not rock the boat so that she'll be shoe horned into some nice cushy number after she leaves. She's still young enough.

Rebelheart

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

1. I don't believe the seanad serves any useful purpose. It is merely a Toffs debating society, albeit an expensive one, and should be abolished as soon as possible.

Well said. The argument for keeping that rapacious elitist institution is non-existent. That fact that somebody like Eoghan Harris can get a seat in it entirely because he came on national tv ranting in favour of the very person who subsequently awarded him a Seanad seat speaks volumes for the corrupt pretentious little hole that it is.

PeterIanStaker

President aside, the Seanad is a complete waste of space, time and money.

Its continued existence, never mind giving it any kind of power would be a step in the wrong direction.

Things are bad enough without entrusting any power to a mausoleum of Taoiseach's nominees and people who couldnt even get elected via the gombeen parish pump system.

jimmycrackcorm

Vivara wrote: »

She can't say a word or directly criticise the government — well she could, but that, I'm sure, would be be frowned upon. Apparently, she is waiting until closer to her term expiration to do just that.

She could speak out - it's not like someone is holding a knife to her throat.....

I also think the seanad is a complete waste. Who the hell do these people represent anyway - I didn't elect any of them.....

Vivara

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

1. I don't believe the seanad serves any useful purpose. It is merely a Toffs debating society, albeit an expensive one, and should be abolished as soon as possible.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Well said. The argument for keeping that rapacious elitist institution is non-existent. That fact that somebody like Eoghan Harris can get a seat in it entirely because he came on national tv ranting in favour of the very person who subsequently awarded him a Seanad seat speaks volumes for the corrupt pretentious little hole that it is.

I'm actually baffled. Did either of you read my post? I was trying to make the point that the Seanad serves no purpose in it's current form and have made several points as to how it could be reformed and radically changed. Abolishing it further increases the Taoiseach's reign (which may be good or bad — many would, I believe, think that that's a bad idea at present).

I even recapped my points at the end.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

2. Can anyone quote any legislation that states that the President cannot comment or address the nation? I don't believe there is any such regulation. She's never been backward at coming forward.

LOL. It's written in the Constitution! So yes. Here is Article 13, point 7 quoted for you:

1- The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, communicate with the Houses of the Oireachtas by message or address on any matter of national or public importance.

2- The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, address a message to the Nation at any time on any such matter.

3- Every such message or address must, however, have received the approval of the Government.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I think she's happy to spend her last year in the lap of luxury and not rock the boat so that she'll be shoe horned into some nice cushy number after she leaves. She's still young enough.

I don't believe McAleese is like that. She appears to me like she wants to do something. Heck, her husband even did the 'Your Ireland, Your Call' rubbish. She's an intelligent woman, and I think that your comments appear to have no basis.

Ed.

freyners

Lenny Lovett wrote:

2. Can anyone quote any legislation that states that the President cannot comment or address the nation? I don't believe there is any such regulation. She's never been backward at coming forward. I think she's happy to spend her last year in the lap of luxury and not rock the boat so that she'll be shoe horned into some nice cushy number after she leaves. She's still young enough

Actually there is, the constitution Article 13.7

1° The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, communicate with the Houses of the Oireachtas by message or address on any matter of national or public importance.
2° The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, address a message to the Nation at any time on any such matter.
3° Every such message or address must, however, have received the approval of the Government.

EDIT: sorry vivara, didnt see your post until i posted mine /EDIT

Vivara

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

President aside, the Seanad is a complete waste of space, time and money.

Its continued existence, never mind giving it any kind of power would be a step in the wrong direction.

Things are bad enough without entrusting any power to a mausoleum of Taoiseach's nominees and people who couldnt even get elected via the gombeen parish pump system.

I recapped my points at the end if you had trouble reading my (albeit long) post. My idea actually reduces the Taoiseach's dominance. Firstly, it gives for EIGHT nominees, not twelve as at present, and secondly, it gives more checks and balances and makes it harder for him to pass laws.

I'm trying not to be sarcastic here... but did anyone actually read my post?

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I also think the seanad is a complete waste. Who the hell do these people represent anyway - I didn't elect any of them.....

That's why I suggested direct election. (That means elected by us, the citizens of Ireland, if anyone is confused.)

PLEASE, please read my post. Nearly all of everyone's points are irrelevant. I'm asking what people think of my ideas... not the current system.

Ed.

EDIT: @freyners — no problem! The more people trying to dispel people's um, 'comments', the better.

gandalf

The Seanad is a waste of space and serves no practical function these days at all. It should be abolished not given more power.

As for the President. They are nothing other than a token head of state.

The real reform should be with the Dail. The number of TD's needs to be reduced to around 100 members. They should be elected by a purely list system removing the gombeenism and parish politics that has infected our systems of Governance to an extent that the disastrous situation that we find ourselves in now was allowed to evolve. The Government should be allowed bring in Ministers from outside the political spectrum to head up departments where specialised experience and qualifications would be preferable.

Vivara

gandalf wrote: »

The Seanad is a waste of space and serves no practical function these days at all. It should be abolished not given more power.

As for the President. They are nothing other than a token head of state

My post attempts to change both of those points. Again, I recapped my points at the end.

Ed.

mikemac

The constitution was written in the 1930's, a time with many dictators in Europe.
So there would be worries over giving the head of State a lot of power.
If you wrote the constitution today, it might be done differently.

Anyway, I like your ideas OP, 2 senators per county and the President with more power.

gandalf wrote: »

The Government should be allowed bring in Ministers from outside the political spectrum to head up departments where specialised experience and qualifications would be preferable.

1° The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the member of the Government who is in charge of the Department of Finance must be members of Dáil Éireann.
2° The other members of the Government must be members of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann, but not more than two may be members of Seanad Éireann

There is some scope about bringing in people from the Senate and it's been done in the past. But not appointing unelected people as Ministers.

NewHillel

Vivara wrote: »

...The way I see it is that the U.S. system is very different and perhaps extreme, but this idea of checks and balances is something we should look into.
....

So, enough of my babbling. Your thoughts?

Ed.

I thought we were already looking into "checks and balances".
Time for the Senate to be scrapped. It's a dead duck!

gandalf

Vivara wrote: »

My post attempts to change both of those points. Again, I recapped my points at the end.

Ed.

Yes you do but that's only if you see the need for a Seanad. I don't see any need at all. I see a need to ensure that those we elect to our National Parliament are concentrated on dealing with National Issues and not whether the local GAA club have changing rooms or if the primary school has a lollipop lady. That is where reform should be concentrated and not in the Windbags Gallery that is our Seanad.

freyners

Vivara wrote:

Secondly, to the President... I think it is ludicrous that a president cannot address the nation without permission from the government. I think the President should be making weekly (maybe monthly) addresses — giving confidence to the people of Ireland who are in dire need of someone to look up to. I also think that the President should be allowed to speak in Dáil and the Seanad as the President of the European Commission can do in the European Parliament. Finally, I think that she should be allowed dismiss the Taoiseach at her own discretion if the Seanad has a two-thirds vote of no-confidence in him.

Theres a school of thought on allowing the president more powers in the sort of way your suggesting.

There are two reports on the subject actually
1.)http://www.constitution.ie/reports/crg.pdf
and
2.)http://www.constitution.ie/reports/3rd-Report-President.pdf
Both of them dealt with topics very similar to what your suggesting.

Mostly they were not in favour of granting the president any new powers as the president is supposed to be a non-political figure and to give the president powers like the one you have suggested to dismiss a taoiseach would cause party politics to influence decisions. (what if the taoiseach does lose support of the seanad yet she does not use this power as she was/is a member of the taoiseachs political party).

On the weekly addresses. In favour but it would cause the same problems as the power to dismiss a taoiseach. also weekly or monthly would be too often as the significance of the speech would wane. I would be a big fan annual state of union type of address as an option though

gandalf

feelingstressed wrote: »

There is some scope about bringing in people from the Senate and it's been done in the past. But not appointing unelected people as Ministers.

Why not. I'd prefer to have people qualified to head specialist departments like Finance. Maybe as a balance you could limit it to 2 people from outside the elected.

Vivara

NewHillel wrote: »

I thought we were already looking into "checks and balances".
Time for the Senate to be scrapped. It's a dead duck!

I agree that it's COMPLETELY useless in it's current form. I'm not sure what you mean, but checks and balances is the idea of ensuring that as many people as possible confirm laws, etc. and that power is spread out a bit. At the moment, because the Senate has little power, the Taoiseach and his party can do whatever they want EVEN when many people in his own party disagree with him.

If we were to give the Senate more power, it would increase the 'checks and balances' and thus decrease the Taoiseach's ridiculous control.

Do people disagree with that?

Ed.

mikemac

Vivara wrote: »

If we were to give the Senate more power, it would increase the 'checks and balances' and thus decrease the Taoiseach's ridiculous control.

Just thinking of an example.

The Wildlife Bill went through the Dáil during the summer. The party whip organizes the members and it got the votes.

If you have two senators per county, it's pretty likely the bill would have delayed/defeated. Most counties are rural and that's were most opposition came from.

Eliot Rosewater

There was an interesting (if short) discussion over in the Political Theory forum recently about the merits and demerits of the US system. You might find it interesting OP: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056055875

I agree with your post insofar as I think the current system of government is not good. A number of factors - the weakness of the Senate and the Presidency, the strong Whip system, the inherent control the PM has over Parliament - leads to a situation where one person, An Taoiseach, has an effectively free hand at controlling the whole country.

The American system is designed to ensure the exact opposite, and I think we could learn some lessons from it. I think if the legislative and the executive were fully separated it might result in policy and law becoming more considered. I'm thinking particularly of the ridiculously unsustainable budgets through the 2000s: my (perhaps naive) hope would be that a separate legislature would put the brakes on such poor policy.


If Ireland were to go down the route of a directly elected Taoiseach I think it would no longer need two houses of parliament. However I would also like to see some serious devolution of power down to local governments. Within such a situation the Senate could act as a council of states, tasked with representing local governments in the federal government (the Dail would continue its current role of representing citizens). Any attempt to take powers away from local government would then require a two thirds majority in the Senate.

I'm probably being too idealistic. The principle opposing factor is Ireland's small size.

CrankyCod

feelingstressed wrote: »

Just thinking of an example.

The Wildlife Bill went through the Dáil during the summer. The party whip organizes the members and it got the votes.

If you have two senators per county, it's pretty likely the bill would have delayed/defeated. Most counties are rural and that's were most opposition came from.

Would that not be democratic?

Mr.Micro

I certainly would not agree to giving the Seanad more power in view of the way that Senators are chosen.....hardly democratic when the likes of Ahern chose the likes of Calelly and types of that ilk.