Sir, – Richard Bruton is reported as claiming that only 1 per cent of the population elect the Seanad (Michael O’Regan, Home News, September 10th).
He may be right and if he is, the reason for that is the failure of successive governments to legislate for extending the electorate to the wider public. He asks, “How many people know that 90 per cent of Senators are exclusively elected by politicians?” A fair question. However, how many people know it is government legislation, not constitutional restrictions, which is mainly responsible for restricting the franchise for the election of 43 of the 60 Seanadóirí to politicians?
For Mr Bruton and for Enda Kenny the question should be what his Government will do to extend the Seanad’s electorate to all Irish citizens, in the likely event that the people reject the Government proposal for its abolition in the forthcoming referendum. – Yours, etc,
DONNCHA
Ó hÉALLAITHE,
Indreabhán,
Co na Gaillimhe.
Sir, – It takes some effrontery for Sinn Féin to describe an institution as inoffensive as Seanad Éireann as an affront to democracy (Home News, September 3rd).
We are not talking about the British House of Lords circa 1909, throwing out the people’s budget or in the previous decade Home Rule. Even today, when it is a nominated rather than a hereditary body, no one much is pressing for the abolition of the Lords, because the experience and expertise among its members is valued for its input into the legislative and policy-making process. The Seanad’s reluctance to repeat the mistake of its Free State Senate predecessor by engaging in any power struggle with the government elected by the Dáil and relying instead on the power of reason is surely to its credit, and shows its determination not to be an affront to democracy.
In terms of elitism and being an affront to democracy, Seanad Éireann for all its failings is in the penny place compared with the only recently defunct army council of the IRA, which claimed to be the “government of the Irish Republic”, even though to this day the people have not been made privy to the names of its members at different times. Its “lawful” powers included execution without trial, the infliction of grievous bodily harm overriding all human rights norms, and authority for actions designed to destroy quite deliberately the economy of Northern Ireland. But, sure, wasn’t Seanad Éireann one of those “illegal assemblies” denounced in the Green Book, the manual for Volunteers, even though it has from time to time had an invaluable contribution from Northern members among the taoiseach’s nominees?
While Sinn Féin’s commitment to and full participation in democratic life on both sides of the Border as a fruit of the peace process represented a tacit acceptance that the IRA campaign now ceased was seen as an affront to democracy, the legitimacy of that campaign is still stoutly defended by Sinn Féin, including the attempt to blow up more than once the British prime minister and cabinet, and as shown by the recent honouring of the memory of two volunteers who accidentally blew themselves up while carrying a bomb.
The record of Seanad Éireann throughout its existence, even when it has not always done itself justice, is positively benign by comparison, and a significant element in the remarkable political stability of independent Ireland in the face of severe stresses at different times.
Fine Gael supporters of abolition are no doubt grateful for the added Sinn Féin support to their cause, even if largely tactical. No doubt, it would also be very unfair to describe this ad hoc alliance as an “axis of collusion”. All the same, defending the institutions of the State no longer seems to be quite the core value it was in Liam Cosgrave’s day. Edmund Burke would not have approved, but then he too was probably an affront to democracy, especially of the lynch mob variety. – Yours, etc,
MARTIN MANSERGH,
Friarsfield House,
Tipperary.
Sir, – I think we all know it’s complete guff when Fine Gael claims there’ll be a financial saving if the Seanad is abolished or that there will be any effort to reform it or the Dáil if it is not.
But is it too much to ask Irish people to try, just for once, to separate two issues. So we want to give Enda Kenny the good kicking he deserves for utterly failing to live up to the mandate of reform he was given and we know the idea to abolish the Seanad was a stunt from when he was in danger of being ousted as Fine Gael leader, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea. We can give Fine Gael and Labour a good kicking next year at the local and European elections.
I’d ask those people who want to retain the Seanad two questions. 1. In the full history of the Seanad, out of the hundreds and hundreds of Senators there have been, name 10 who were not a Dáil has-been or wannabe (Mary Robinson and David Norris both tried to become TDs, so they don’t count). 2. Name one time since its creation when the Seanad did anything to prevent the Dáil making one of its many bad laws. – Yours, etc,
DESMOND FitzGERALD,
Commercial Road,
London, England.
Sir, – On my way home, I passed, in quick succession, Fine Gael’s vapid and populistic posters followed by Sinn Féin’s more intellectually rigorous ones.
I got that Fall of Rome Feeling. – Yours, etc,
STEPHEN FITZPATRICK,
Kerrymount Rise,
Foxrock,
Co Dublin.
A chara, – I was disconcerted to see that a revolving billboard in Bachelor’s Walk, announcing the upcoming referendum on abolishing the Seanad, was quickly followed by one for “Grand Theft Auto”. Is this a subliminal message by the Referendum Commission? – Is mise,
MICHAEL NASH,
Carrickmines Green,
Carrickmines,
Dublin 18.