Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
— October – November 2013
OPINION JOhn gOrmley
B
Y the time you read this it’s likely that the Irish electorate
will have voted to scrap the Seanad. It will be a regrettable,
if not inevitable decision. Regrettable, because the qual-
ity of our democracy will have been diminished. Inevitable,
because senators, generally speaking, have brought this sorry state
of affairs upon themselves. I belong to that small band of ministers
who attempted, but ultimately failed, to reform the Senate. There
were a number of reasons for this failure: the collapse of the govern-
ment and the resistance to change, being the main two.
It became obvious to all who attended those Senate Reform meet-
ings that there was a certain coterie of senators who had no intention
of reforming this rotten borough. They sought to stymie any efforts
of reform, often not turning up for meetings, offering ‘the dog ate
my homework’ type excuses. This deliberate foot-dragging alien-
ated some of the pro reform University senators, who in turn refused
to change the university panel system until the other panels were
reformed. The result was a stalemate, with
no one being prepared to jump first.
Had the government gone full term, we
might have at least revised the elitist univer-
sity panels by extending the franchise to all
third level institutions. This would have rep-
resented a modest change to an antiquated
system. Nonetheless, it would have been the
only reform of the Seanad system since its
foundation. And therein lies the core reason
for its demise. As Darwin has shown, a fail-
ure - or in this instance refusal – to adapt can
lead to extinction. Senators never seemed
to appreciate that they were a species under
threat. Too often, the elitism was accompa-
nied by a hubris and bombast that served to
alienate even Senate supporters from the
institution. Senators were forever demanding
that the Upper House be treated with respect
by ministers. As a supporter of the bicameral
system, I made it my business to attend the Seanad whenever it was
possible (many ministers will often send a junior Minister). I recall
one occasion when I was the only person in the senate chamber for
an adjournment debate. Even the proposer had apparently forgot-
ten that his motion had been accepted. On other occasions, during
speeches on legislation, senators would ignore standing orders and
start to ask questions during a second stage debate. This was a con-
venient device for senators who were using the chamber as means of
getting elected to the Dáil.
Alas, it looks like they have all played into the hands of Enda,
who has – despite what his
detractors might say – an
uncanny understanding of
what works in politics: keep
it simple, go for the lowest
common denominator and
then repeat your message
ad nauseum. Right now,
the national mood is anti
politician and pro cutting
political expense. Enda
has managed to present
this referendum as an act
of revenge on the political
class. By doing so, he has
forced the traditional left
in this country – Labour,
Sinn Féin, Socialist Party
etc – to join the populist
anti-Senate bandwagon.
The right and the left
have combined in a lethal
pincer movement to eliminate the Upper House. Do those on the Irish
Left not realise that the Senate, despite its shortcomings, did in its
time do the State some service? Have they forgotten the contribution
of Mary Robinson and David Norris to creating a fairer, more pro-
gressive, more just society? Can they not imagine a reformed Senate
adding anything to our democracy? It seems they may have simply
succumbed to the politics of the dumbed-down soundbite, slogans
that replace any form of sophisticated debate. Or indeed any debate
that involves the leader of our country, who happens to be the main
proponent of this constitutional measure.
The only glimmer of hope is that the pro-Seanad voters might be
more motivated to go to the polls, but even they must wonder why
they should assist Senators who refused to reform themselves over
many decades.
The attitude of senators reminds me of taxi men back in early nine-
ties when there was shortage of taxi plates, resulting in long queues at
taxi ranks. The taxi men refused to countenance any change to their
previleged status. They had employed Frank Dunlop to lobby coun-
cillors on Dublin City Council. The taxi drivers were successful - in
the short term. But ultimately their intransigence led to the deregula-
tion of the entire taxi industry. Senators could have and should have
learned from this experience.
The only question now is whether in a fit of pique the Upper House
can make life difficult for the Taoiseach in its dying days. As we go
Darwinism and the Seanad
A failure – or in this instance refusal – to adapt can lead to
extinction. By John Gormley
Even the
proposer
had
apparently
forgotten
that his
motion
had been
accepted
“
