Taoiseach plans referendum on Seanad reform

ishmael whale

While unlikely, it would be welcome if any referendum on Seanad reform included an option to simply abolish this unnecessary institution.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2004/12/15/story180558.html

Taoiseach plans referendum on Seanad reform
15/12/2004 - 13:03:02

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has pledged his support to a referendum on Seanad reform ahead of the next general election.

Mr Ahern's plans are to provide more cross-community representation from Northern Ireland.

"I support increasing membership of the Seanad and formalising the existing ad-hoc arrangements," Deputy Ahern told the Dáil today.

"This, of course, could only be done by referendum. I imagine that this is a matter on which all parties will have views. For my part, I would like to see such a referendum before the next general election."

arcadegame2004

Well I hope that they actually implement the result of such a referendum this time, whatever way it goes, especially considering the nonsense whererby the referendum held decades ago to allow graduates of universities other than the 2 (Trinity and another I can't recall the name of) currently allowed to vote in Seanad elections to do so. Otherwise what's the point in having these votes?

I disagree with Ishmael on abolishing the Seanad. We need an upper-house of some kind to force politicians in the Dail to think again when something rash and/or filled with loopholes is being guillotined through the Dail. The Seanad needs more teeth, so that it is worth voting for. The current 9 month delaying power has never (as far as I know) been used before. Myabe this is partly because Senators don't see the point in voting against legislation when in 9 months it will become law anyway. If they had more teeth they might considering it worthwhile to use their powers. I feel that amending powers should be added to the Seanad's current powers.

seamus

Wait for the low turnout. How many people actually know what the Seanad does?

Our man in Havana

There should be universal sufferage in respect to the seanad elections. It would make senators more accountable to the people.

Gurgle

Bond-007 wrote:

There should be universal sufferage in respect to the seanad elections. It would make senators more accountable to the people.

The biggest problem with democracy is that 50% of the voters are of below average intelligence.

Irish answer: Create a tier of government which isn't affected by this problem, then give them no power.

oscarBravo

ishmael whale wrote:

While unlikely, it would be welcome if any referendum on Seanad reform included an option to simply abolish this unnecessary institution.

That raises an interesting (to me, anyway) question: I'm really only familiar with bicameral government in the democracies that I know anything about. Can anyone point out a single-chamber parliament, and its pros and cons relative to a useful second chamber?

Zaphod

The Israeli Knesset is unicameral.

Sand

There should be universal sufferage in respect to the seanad elections. It would make senators more accountable to the people.

The lower house is supposed to the one accountable to the people. The upper house is supposed act as a check on populist parties rushing through dangerous legislation - not an accelerator of populist tendencies.

Democracy is a good thing, but you can have too much of it.

gandalf

Personally I think that the Seanad as a buffer so any "dodgy legislation" is a good idea however in its current form it is not ideal.

No senators should be nominated by the Political Parties at all.

What I would propose is to allocate seats as follows.

A number of seats would be divided between the different mainstream religions in the state based on their number of active worshippers. Business would have a set number of seats nominated by their representative bodies, unions also. NGO and charities would also have a number of seats and then a set number of seats broken down by boundries (probably the same as the Euro Elections) would be contested by public vote.

I feel that would give a balanced House which should represent and protect the wishes of the majority of citizens against bad legislation being passed by the dail.

I do not think any representation should be given to any Northern Parties or bodies in the Seanad until they are under the jurisdiction of this state which at the moment they are not.

Personally I also feel (as I have posted before) we should cut the numbers of TD's drastically and give more power to the local authorities.

m1ke

Giving the Seanad more power isn't a realistic, practical or useful action to take, actually it would be counterproductive.

I believe the Seanads purpose should be to improve the quality of legislation rather than act to counter it. If it can't do this it should be abolished. Any possibly dangerous legislation should be prevented constitutionally/judicial review or either passed by a referendum.

However, I think it is performing ok and if it can provide a forum for cooperation with NI then that increases its usefulness even more.

Inreply to gandalf:
I don't think the Seanad should ever act as a buffer to legislation this could just clog the democratic process, especially with that corporatist/interest group representation you propose.

I think representation should be given to the northern parties, because in this day and age, cooperation/interdependence/communication with our neighbours is a political norm and advantageous economically. We do this at a European level with our neighbours in the EU and should do it at a micro scale through the Seanad with NI who are really more then a just a neighbour.

I think cutting the number of TDs is a good idea(to say 100). I'd have reservations about giving more power to local authorities until the present corruption tribunals have drawn to a close.

TomF

Zaphod wrote:

The Israeli Knesset is unicameral.

So is the legislature of the U.S. State of Nebraska. One immediate advantage is half the numbers of elected legislators and their office staff.

TomF

Every time I see a televised Seanad session, I feel embarrassed for the poor Senators who practically have their knees in the back of the Senator seated in front of them. I'd think if we thought the Seanad had any dignity, we would give them a bigger chamber with more gravitas. It must be hard to declaim with effect when senators round about you have to duck every time you make a sweeping gesture.

Sparks

Forget about the chamber Tom, it'd be hard for them to have any gravitas because of the personalities of some of the senators anyway, so the building itself is purely secondary.

gandalf

m1ke wrote:

Inreply to gandalf:
I don't think the Seanad should ever act as a buffer to legislation this could just clog the democratic process, especially with that corporatist/interest group representation you propose.

It depends with the right mix of groups it should reflect what greater society wants.

I think representation should be given to the northern parties, because in this day and age, cooperation/interdependence/communication with our neighbours is a political norm and advantageous economically. We do this at a European level with our neighbours in the EU and should do it at a micro scale through the Seanad with NI who are really more then a just a neighbour.

Personally until they sort out their own differences I do not think they should have any part of this. In my opinion our politicans have wasted enough time and deflected attention away from relevant issues down here too often because of the north.

I think cutting the number of TDs is a good idea(to say 100). I'd have reservations about giving more power to local authorities until the present corruption tribunals have drawn to a close.

Yep here is that original post that I fired up about this in 2001.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=36665&highlight=dail+eireann

ishmael whale

My understanding is that the upper house is meant to reflect some representational flavour missing from the chamber elected by popular vote. So the US Senate represents each State equally, so that smaller states can’t be ignored. Similarly the Bundesrat consists of representatives appointed by the Lander Government. And then there's the UK's House of Lords (ahem, moving swiftly along.)

In the context of a 32 county Ireland, the Senate might, maybe, possibly, have had a role in giving equal or disproportion representation to Ulster. But its hard to see what role it meets in the 26 county context. It could hardly be argued that regions lack representation in the Dail, which is an institution steeped in the local as a quick inspection of typical parliamentary questions reveals.

So we’re left with this chamber which largely consists of former TDs who lost their seat and people deemed to be future Dail candidates. The only bright spark is the contribution of some of the 6 University panel Senators. Much as I value David Norris’s contribution to Irish public life, setting up a whole institution just to give a platform to him and a few other articulate people seems a bit much.

Bear in mind the Senate is already notionally organised on vocational lines. The model was tried and found irrelevant.

Maybe someone can find a useful role for the Senate, although my attitude is if it wasn’t there we wouldn’t invent it. Hence a useful format for a referendum would seem to be a) leave it as it is b) manufacture a reason to keep it going c) abolish it

bonkey

ishmael whale wrote:

But its hard to see what role it meets in the 26 county context.

One role which the US Senate, Bundesrat, House of Lords (yes, even them) and other similar "second body" representations is that of some form of "second opinion".

Here, the problem with the Seanad is its lack of ability to actually do anything. Sure, they can reocmmend that the government reconsider something...but c'mon....in this day and age that amounts to an approach of put it on the shelf for the required number of days and then say "nope...I haven't changed my mind, but thanks for the suggestion".

But if their capability were changed (as well, perhaps, as how they are elected), this could be an important role to play....especially as we've just seen that our President can effectively be chosen by the Dail which should immediately question the impartiality of the Presidential role when it comes to approving/opposing signing legislation into law.

jc

ishmael whale

Just to be clear – and I’m sure you don’t mean any different – as I understand it the President’s role is simply to ensure that proposed legislation does not conflict with the Constitution. She would therefore have no role in giving a second opinion on a piece of legislation, once it passes that test. There is a clear case to be made for the President’s role – it makes sense for an independent person to have this role, and, while I have no particular concerns about the present incumbent, I agree the lack of an election is an undesireable. Even if the only other candidate had been Dana, at least the mandate would have been refreshed.

The Seanad’s role, and that of other second Chambers, might indeed be described as giving a second opinion. However the question is really if there is some configuration that would give a second opinion worth having. The Dail is elected pretty much on a straight population basis, so its usefulness is clear enough. The Dail represents the people as a whole. (Yes, that’s what we’re like. Pretty sight, isn’t it) So if the Dail passes an Act you can confidently say that’s what the people’s representatives have voted for.

Where’s the need for a second opinion? What opinion is unrepresented by the Dail? How would a second chamber be elected that would given a coherent, useful second opinion on the Dail’s output?

Victor

This, of course, could only be done by referendum.

Erm, isn't the filling of the Seanad largely down to legislation, not the constitution?

Moriarty

I've always liked the way the universitys get to elect people to the seanad. It's a remarkably progressive policy, even if it is to an almost powerless second house which also suffers from many other problems.

I'd agree with gandalfs suggestion of NGOs and the sort being allocated a certain amount of seats, but i'd be far less inclined to give seats to unions or business organisations. I wouldn't even contemplate giving seats to religious institutions - I have nothing against them, but a clear seperation of church and state is always required. I'm honestly not sure if any sort of public vote would be a good idea, that is what the dail is for after all.

gurramok

Moriarty wrote:

. I'm honestly not sure if any sort of public vote would be a good idea, that is what the dail is for after all.

Well, over 95% of the population has zero input to this Seanad thing, why should they care about it ?

I don't have a vote to Seanad so I couldn't care less.

Make the Seanad accountable or abolish it.

FTA69

Sand wrote:

The lower house is supposed to the one accountable to the people. The upper house is supposed act as a check on populist parties rushing through dangerous legislation - not an accelerator of populist tendencies.

Democracy is a good thing, but you can have too much of it.

So what are you saying exactly? It seems to me you are advocating that the people be restrained somewhat in their democratic choice. The problem that arises here though, is the question of who are the people to do the restraining? University graduates? The rich? Businessmen? Santa Claus?

People should have equal standing within any democracy and they do not need some social elite to dictate what is an acceptable choice. The current scenario is a two tier system of democracy, I feel the Seanad should be scrapped, besides it being a waste of money it enshrines a primitive and crude mentality that those with a university education are "better" citizens than those who haven't.

pork99

gurramok wrote:

Well, over 95% of the population has zero input to this Seanad thing, why should they care about it ?

I don't have a vote to Seanad so I couldn't care less.

Make the Seanad accountable or abolish it.

They should either

1) Make senate membership dependent getting an electoral mandate. This could be set up so that candidates are not allowed to stand on party platforms and could be held in paralell with presidential elections

or

2) Get rid of it

Nothing in between has any legitimacy imho.

We're meant to live in a representative democracy. Why should some snot-nosed 24 year-old UCD graduate be given more of a say than my father who has worked and payed his taxes for 5 decades since leaving school at the age of 14? It's wrong, sorry Moriarty, you must have a different concept of "progressive" from mine.

Moriarty

pork99 wrote:

We're meant to live in a representative democracy. Why should some snot-nosed 24 year-old UCD graduate be given more of a say than my father who has worked and payed his taxes for 5 decades since leaving school at the age of 14? It's wrong, sorry Moriarty, you must have a different concept of "progressive" from mine.

We do live in a representative democracy, that's what the Dail is - a place where democracy in all it's flaws works away. The seanad should be a place where debate isn't ruled by short term political opportunism which the dail suffers from so badly. To me, that means as few 'professional' politicans as possible, and also removing all direct public elections to get rid of the pandering effect that the Dail personifys. I don't agree with university graduates having a vote for the seanad, that's certainly flawed. Have the university heads, NGOs, etc etc, directly nominate people they'd like to see in.

The seanad could then take an independant long term view of what government policy would do and endorse/change/deny legislation as applicable.

pork99

Moriarty wrote:

We do live in a representative democracy, that's what the Dail is - a place where democracy in all it's flaws works away. The seanad should be a place where debate isn't ruled by short term political opportunism which the dail suffers from so badly. To me, that means as few 'professional' politicans as possible, and also removing all direct public elections to get rid of the pandering effect that the Dail personifys. I don't agree with university graduates having a vote for the seanad, that's certainly flawed. Have the university heads, NGOs, etc etc, directly nominate people they'd like to see in.

The seanad could then take an independant long term view of what government policy would do and endorse/change/deny legislation as applicable.

I agree with you up to a point. That's why senate elections would need to be different- I would propose that they would be held alongside presidential elections - term of 7 years, so not short term, and candidates would not be allowed to stand on any party platform (if in any party should have to leave it) or have held elected office in any other body (except the Seanad).

Victor

FTA69 wrote:

People should have equal standing within any democracy

Not equal, balanced. Should everyone be able to vote in Irish elections, even if they don't live here?

FTA69 wrote:

The current scenario is a two tier system of democracy, I feel the Seanad should be scrapped, besides it being a waste of money it enshrines a primitive and crude mentality that those with a university education are "better" citizens than those who haven't.

Only for 10% of the senate. I imagine this is broadly in line with the percentage with degrees from universities. In a way these teats are a post-colonial hangover*, but as such aren't bad. It is that nobody else (except politicians) can vote for the seats is the problem.

* The government after independence realised that to exclude the professions from the Oireachtas would be a bad thing. The university seats in the Senate replaced the university seats in the Commons and the Dáil.

FTA69

Victor wrote:

Not equal, balanced. Should everyone be able to vote in Irish elections, even if they don't live here?

Where are you getting that out of? I'm saying that every Irish citizen should have a decision in an Irish election that effects them, that after all is democracy.

bonkey

FTA69 wrote:

I'm saying that every Irish citizen should have a decision in an Irish election that effects them, that after all is democracy.

No, you're not.

Or do you think that those below the age of 18 aren't citizens. Below 16? 6? 6 months?

No?

So when you said "everyone", and then clarified it to mean "every Irish citizen", can we take it to mean that you really meant something even more limited?

I think you're gonna end up proving exactly what Victor was making the distinguishment for.

ishmael whale

Victor wrote:

The government after independence realised that to exclude the professions from the Oireachtas would be a bad thing.

Can I suggest that a more neutral wording would be to say "The government felt that to exclude the professions would be a bad thing." I think specific provision for election of a number of seats by graduates is of questionable value, and the term 'realised' suggests that its self evidently a good idea.

I haven't seen any figures recently, but I can recall at one stage an article saying that a high percentage of TDs were teachers, accountants and lawyers. This suggests that we're not short of graduates in the Dail. (Note: I take it as self evident that the Senators appointed by the Taoiseach and those elected by local councillors are typically just TDs-in-waiting, and add little to the process.)

The University panel has produced some high calibre representatives who have made independent contributions. But the election of minority voices such as Joe Higgins shows that the Dail is quite open to atypical candidates. The need for a Seanad is hardly pressing.

Zaphod

ishmael whale wrote:

But the election of minority voices such as Joe Higgins shows that the Dail is quite open to atypical candidates.

And to Michael McDowell.

FTA69

bonkey wrote:

No, you're not.

Or do you think that those below the age of 18 aren't citizens. Below 16? 6? 6 months?

No?

So when you said "everyone", and then clarified it to mean "every Irish citizen", can we take it to mean that you really meant something even more limited?

Don't be annoying me with semantics, ye knew full well that by "everyone" I mean those eligible to vote. But if attempting to wind up people on an internet forum amuses you.... whatever floats your boat....

Sparks

FTA69 wrote:

Don't be annoying me with semantics

What's the difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" then?

Seems to me, semantics is a rather important part of communication, and only those people who don't actually know what the word "semantics" means think that it isn't, or try to say an argument is worthless because it's "just semantics"...

Victor

ishmael whale wrote:

I haven't seen any figures recently, but I can recall at one stage an article saying that a high percentage of TDs were teachers, accountants and lawyers.

Now, yes, but remember the revolution was a peoples revolution.

PS Professions is code for protestants.

FTA69

Sparks wrote:

What's the difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" then?

Seems to me, semantics is a rather important part of communication, and only those people who don't actually know what the word "semantics" means think that it isn't, or try to say an argument is worthless because it's "just semantics"...

When one purposely manipulates another's comments to give the impression that they are conveying a nonsensical view, that is the unnecessary exploitation of semantics.

To answer your question though, the word "terrorist" is defined as "one who engages in violence for political advantage", by that logic the Allies in WW2 were "terrorists" as they engaged in "political violence", in fact, all soldiers that ever fought a war or "terrorists". In everyday use it is a derogatory slur used to denote psychopaths and criminally motivated evil people. A "freedom fighter" is one who fights against an unjust situation.

Sparks

FTA69 wrote:

When one purposely manipulates another's comments to give the impression that they are conveying a nonsensical view, that is the unnecessary exploitation of semantics.

No, it's not. When you manipulate someone else's words to give an impression not originally intended, it's called misquoting. Semantics is the study of what a given statement actually means.

To answer your question though, the word "terrorist" is defined as "one who engages in violence for political advantage" <snip> In everyday use it is a derogatory slur used to denote psychopaths and criminally motivated evil people.

Really? Because everyone I know uses terms like "psychos" or "nutters" and "thugs" for those groups, not "terrorists". We don't talk about the "terrorists" who mug people on friday night on O'Connell street, we talk about the "thugs" who do so.

A "freedom fighter" is one who fights against an unjust situation.

And if he or she does so by using violence to try to force a political change to correct the situation? (And that's wholly disregarding the question of who judges if a situation is unjust or not).

Victor

So are Senators terrorists or freedom fighters? Stop going off topic.

Poker_Peter

We do live in a representative democracy, that's what the Dail is - a place where democracy in all it's flaws works away. The seanad should be a place where debate isn't ruled by short term political opportunism which the dail suffers from so badly. To me, that means as few 'professional' politicans as possible, and also removing all direct public elections to get rid of the pandering effect that the Dail personifys. I don't agree with university graduates having a vote for the seanad, that's certainly flawed. Have the university heads, NGOs, etc etc, directly nominate people they'd like to see in.

Hmmm. While I agree with what you say about not making the Seanad the mirror image of the Dail, in order to avoid undue populism and/or bad, rushed decisions, I think that some element of democratic input, together with rules similar to those of the US Senate e.g. no time-limit allowed on debates unless 60% of senators agree, has to be put in place. The Senate should also get more powers. We need to avoid crazy laws going through, so we don't want party-hacks dominating the upper house.

My solution to squaring this circle is to require that in Seanad elections, all the candidates should be required not to stand on behalf of a political party. They should all be Independents. Also, political-parties should agree not to campaign on behalf of any of the candidates. That would help produce an upper house free (well a lot more so than the present Seanad) of political interference. More teeth are also needed for the upper-house, since power comes from the people and the change to an elected body elected by universal-suffrage sort of entitles that body to exert greater power. So give the Seanad power to amend proposed legislation, like the British House of Lords, while letting the proposed law go through after 2 years regardless of what the Seanad thinks.

In Britain, the House of Lords has used similar powers to successfully persuade the British Government to make substantial changes in proposed laws. I think it could work well here too.

Lennoxschips

At the moment Ireland has only one branch of government.

The Seanad has no power and the President is a glorified ribbon cutter.

Whoever holds the majority in the Dail has the power to do whatever they want. There's nothing in place to create stability if some Aryan nutcases ever came to power in the Dail. We need something. Either give the Seanad more power or the President. My preference goes to giving the Seanad more power, as investing too much power in one person can't be a good thing.

My idea would be to let parties run for the Seanad on a national basis. In other words, no constituencies. If 34% of the people vote for a given party then that party gets 34% of the seats etc. Hold the Seanad elections in the years in between the elections for the Dail, then you can gauge public opinion more accurately. It would stop parties from doing as they please knowing that the next elections are always a long time away.

frodi

Declaring my interest first of all, I'm one of the 5% with a vote in seanad election (TCD graduate)
No point in having party repesentation in seanad as this means that it acts act mirror or rubber stamp to dail. Have either popular vote with no party repesentation allowed or selected electorate. Personally I feel that a selected electorate is discrimitatory so I prefer popular election at same time as dail election with no dual canditure allowed and no party repesentation allowed. Certainly no 12 taoseach nominees allowed, the seanad has to be independant.

monument

Sand wrote:

Democracy is a good thing, but you can have too much of it.

I'm just reading that as bad democracy (or a semi, not too democrat democracy) is a good thing. In other words a government which calls it self a democracy, but isn’t very democrat at all.

gandalf wrote:

Personally I also feel (as I have posted before) we should cut the numbers of TD's drastically and give more power to the local authorities.

I'm not sure about a lot you said, not even sure about cutting the numbers of TDs [I'll have a look at your other thread], but couldn’t agree more with the idea of more power to local authorities, from CCs down.

gandalf wrote:

It depends with the right mix of groups it should reflect what greater society wants.

Yeah, but more often then not corporate, or other interest groups don’t really reflect what greater society wants.

Lennoxschips wrote:

The Seanad has no power and the President is a glorified ribbon cutter.

In addition, some would say our current President talks a bit of dangerous gobbledegook.

Lennoxschips wrote:

My idea would be to let parties run for the Seanad on a national basis. In other words, no constituencies. If 34% of the people vote for a given party then that party gets 34% of the seats etc. Hold the Seanad elections in the years in between the elections for the Dail, then you can gauge public opinion more accurately. It would stop parties from doing as they please knowing that the next elections are always a long time away.

Interesting, but I don’t like where you’re going with ‘parties’ – with individuals, linked to a party, or not, would be more suitable.