Abolishing Seanad would be a cynical act

COLUMN

“In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons … who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” – Edward L Bernays (1891-1995)

 

 

There is trouble ahead. Not for the usual reasons associated with the economy and the bitter austerity imposed by the Government at the Troika’s behest but because of a piece of folly on the part of the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny. He proposed a number of years ago that the Seanad needed to be abolished. As it stands, he has taken his idea all the way to potential fruition with the announcement that a referendum will be held in autumn this year.

This is a political stunt. I rarely agree with him but Peter Hitchins recently wrote in a column about David Cameron’s deployment of his wife to highlight the plight of people in Syria. Hitchens offered the following advice to readers of the right-wing Mail on Sunday, “They do this sort of thing because they think you’re gullible and easily manipulated. You don’t have to fall for it.”

I see the same cynical, manipulative political manoeuvring in Enda Kenny’s campaign to abolish the Seanad. It is cynical because it aims to exploit the absolute frustration of the Irish people with the politics that has failed them so miserably.
The last 15 years has exposed the rotten heart of Irish politics but this does not mean we should abolish a potential safeguard against continued ineptitude. There is no doubt that the Seanad is in need of significant reform but to abolish it would be an act of gross disservice to the nation. To do it for the kinds of shallow political reasons that seem to be driving Enda Kenny will be unforgivable if it comes to pass.

We will never know the full truth of what lies behind the Taoiseach’s grand gesture but you don’t need to be a political junkie to see its genesis to our current position has been a progression from the back of a fag packet to potentially damaging reality aimed at scoring political points at the expense of the nation’s democracy.

Bullies and opportunists will always single out the easiest target and there is no finer example of an easy target in Irish political life than the Seanad. It cannot adequately defend itself against charges of elitism, jobs for the boys or a lack of effectiveness in the way it is constructed. It is in addressing these areas that reform could build it into an institution worth keeping. To propose simply abolishing it is myopic. To actually end its existence would be monumentally stupid and an ugly blister representing everything that is wrong with the current political system.

Ireland finds itself in a situation where an increasing percentage of its laws are decided in Brussels. The Troika has been dictating social and economic policy to a large extent since their intervention to bail out the nation and facilitate its financial nourishment of runaway banks. And yet, at a time like this, the Government is proposing the abolition of the upper house of the nation, which has the potential to actually monitor and analyse the actions of government. It is the removal of a layer of government when one is required more than it ever has been.

The claim by Minister Richard Bruton that other nations such as Sweden and Denmark function fine with only one chamber holds little water. If the minister is so interested in how other nations operate then perhaps he could take a leaf out of their book in terms of social provision, with decent healthcare and education at the top of the list. Even if the Government was the most decent and socially minded on the planet, it could not afford to repair the safety net it has been so assiduously destroying since it came into office so following the good example of other nations should not be trotted out as an excuse to dismantle a democratic institution. The suggestion that money saved from abolishing the Seanad could fund special needs was repugnant in its manipulative intent.

Over the years we have grown used to the Seanad as background noise in Irish politics. There have been occasional flashes of colour but in general it has not occupied a central place in people’s minds. Ireland’s political parties have used the house as a method of repaying old favours and blooding what are considered to be rising stars. Other than a few consistent performers who ploughed their own furrows, by gaining access through other means, there has been little to note from the goings-on there. In the form in which it has existed, there is little to love about the Seanad but this is down to the way it has been used by politicians. If we can bring about change then there is hope for the institution.

Certain commentators have suggested that there be a directly elected chamber subject to the vote of the general population. I agree that there should be an open election process but I would propose something more radical in how these elections are organised. I would advocate a politically neutral chamber whereby no candidate could stand under the banner of a party. Most candidates inclined to stand would have a political leaning of course but no party would be allowed to openly endorse a candidate. It could be argued that this would lead to the filthy tactics that characterise electioneering going underground and becoming all the more poison for it but at the very least there might be something approaching honesty at election time, with no candidate being able to hide behind the whip without exposing themselves in the process.

We might see the variegated nature of Irish political life. No whip, just people and a sometimes conflicting set of personal beliefs which they are willing to discuss openly and stand behind in order to get elected. The irony would lie in the difficulty the electorate might experience in distinguishing between the candidates on a party basis given the contrived nature of current inter-party differentiation in an age of political homogeneity.