My column in The Kerryman. 12 June, 2013
There’s a particular species of Irish person who’s very excited about a new referendum. These strange people are gleeful because of a vote on the Seanad. I know these people exist, because I’m one of them. I’m just not sure which type of weirdo I am.
Worse, this column won’t even be the last time I write about the Seanad. I know you’re normal people, so I have to try find some way of making good honest people, take an interest in something so dull, the majority of you won’t be voting. Most won’t even register the result. Your life will in no way change if the Seanad is retained or abolished. That’s just how unimportant this issue is.
As in any debate, there are two sides. On one side are the people who want rid of this pointless collection of overpaid windbags and political parasites. On the other side are people who want this collection of overpaid windbags and political parasites extensively reformed so that the Seanad functions as something more than as a repository for overpaid windbags and political parasites.
No one is arguing to leave well enough alone. So you know something is wrong. You know the Seanad is supposed to be doing something, but isn’t doing whatever that thing is. Again, that highlights another separation between normal people and nerds who care about the Seanad. We nerds know what the Seanad should do, sort of. But as only about 150,000 of us are allowed vote for the thing (I’m not one of those privileged few) hardly any of us spare its purpose or existence any thought.
Simply put, the Seanad, or the Upper House, should ensure that laws passed by the Dáil, are given the kind of care and attention, that only a collection of people, not slaves to opinion polls and party whips, can give. It’s a worthy ideal.
Our Upper House is based on the UK’s House of Lords, which was allowed to check the populist leanings of the Lower House, the House of Commons. Though the Lords is now only allowed to delay – not block – legislation, a power they lost because, among other things, they were not keen on Ireland being granted Home Rule. So we did help reform our neighbour’s Upper House. Why then can we not reform our own? No wait, our Upper House can hinder the passage of a law?
Well the Seanad could in theory delay the passing of a law, but it was set up in such a way, that the Government would always have a comfortable majority in the Seanad. And as politicians almost never vote against their party, the Seanad has not managed to evolve beyond being a house of overpaid windbags and political parasites.
Then there is the issue of size. The UK has a vast population compared to ours. It has two Houses of Parliament, or is bicameral, to be technical. Most countries of Ireland’s size are unicameral and they appear to do just fine.
So do we really need the Seanad? I just don’t know, but rest assured I shall return to this topic again. I just hope you keep reading as I try to decide which way I’ll vote.
