Sir, – There are three limbs to our elected democratic governance system, all more or less unchanged in over 70 years. 1. The presidency. 2. Seanad Éireann. 3. Dáil Éireann. They are three interactive parts fulfilling different roles and with different levels of power.
It is wrong to judge one element as defective, expensive and unnecessary without assessing the remaining elements.
Abolishing the Seanad will save less than reforms, reduction in numbers and allied costs made to the Dáil.
(The Seanad does need reform but, more comprehensively, so does the Dáil. Changing the Seanad electorate is the most needed change.)
Seek better roads to be followed by both Houses of the Oireachtas before simply abolishing one without any examination of the bicameral system.
It is frightening to see one of the elective elements of our democracy being abolished with little or no public discussion for or against the proposal. We deserve to be asked: “Reform” or “Abolish”. Not being so asked suggests a No vote. – Yours, etc,
SEÁN STEWART,
Lower Salthill,
Galway.
Sir, – The Constitution is a contract between the State and its citizens. Like any contract, there are provisions which relate to events we hope will never happen. Many of these relate to governments over-stepping their power. These provisions will only prove to be useful when we need them. It may not have happened in our short-lived Republic, and indeed we might imagine it never will. Yet our founders saw good reason for such protections when setting up our Constitution. The Seanad, as a check on the government of the day, is one such protection.
We are being told by the current Government that we don’t need this protection ostensibly so as to save money. It’s a paltry amount in terms of what our Government spends, and from which they have not even yet made public the costs of actually holding the referendum.
When we will have need for these provisions in the Constitution, we will not be given the chance to put them back in. Abuse of power is made all the easier when a government can reduce the judiciary’s pay or if they no longer have an upper house as a check on their power.
The current Government is tinkering away with our Constitution at an alarming rate. A referendum to abolish the Seanad rather than giving us the option of reform is not just short-sighted, but a dereliction of duty. At worst, it is an underhand removal of some of the core protections inherent in our Constitution. – Yours, etc,
FRANCIS COLL,
Dodderbank,
Milltown, Dublin 14.
Sir, – Barry Walsh (September 12th) lists 14 present and past distinguished senators. He uses their names to justify the retention of the Seanad and states, “What strikes you immediately is the sheer impact which they collectively had on our society and our politics”.
Without relisting all the names, one has to agree that indeed, they were people of some achievement. Nevertheless, on closer scrutiny, one immediately sees that nearly all these people made their contribution to the country throughout their lives, in their chosen fields of activity, and long before their elevation to the Seanad. Their appointments to the Seanad were, primarily, in recognition of their undoubted contribution. But the real benefits to our society resulted from their lifelong work and not, as Mr Walsh suggests, from their membership of the Seanad. Like the House of Lords, there is something of the Elysian Fields about our Senate. – Yours, etc,
LIAM MURRAY,
Kelston,
Foxrock,
Dublin 18.