Seanad is in need of reform, not abolition

The Seanad is in dire need of Reform, but not Abolition

Proposed reasons for abolition:

Why the public voted to keep it:

Reform still necessary

believed that in 2013 people wanted to reform the Seanad, picked ‘No’ due to the binary nature of the referendum
great public appetite for reform

Problems stem from its composition, not from limited powers-

after all,its a largely advisory body secondary to Dail, so wide-reaching powers not expected
total of 1,169 voters elect 43 Senators
one of the most exclusive electoral ‘clubs’ in the world
these Senators accountable only to a tiny sliver of Nation they have hand in governing
- not democratic, representative, or good for accountability

Election of 3 Senators by Trinity graduates and 3 by NUI highlights elitism at core of chamber-

despite there being many 3rd-level institutions, the 2 most prestigious and typically elitist get this opportunity
Ronan Mullen- his anti-abortion and homophobic views as outdated as this method of election
and not representative of the vast majority of the public that he has a hand in governing-
if it was up to the public he probably wouldn’t be in the Seanad.

Common criticism- a nursing home for retiring TDs and a creche for aspiring ones

elections occur up to 90 days after GE, outgoing TDs who lost their seat can be elected to sit in the Seanad.
FF’s Denis Donovan- through process several times - elected to Seanad in 1997, became a TD on fifth attempt in 2002, re-elected to the Seanad in 2007 after losing his seat in the Dail.
Taoiseach's 11 appointments often unsuccessful TDs- Mary Fitzpatrick.
raises questions of democratic legitimacy, in her case, was clear several times over she was not chosen by the public, or even the Seanad, having several unsuccessful attempts to join both chambers before appointment.

Another major criticism- woeful attendance.

though some diligent, committed + can be counted on to attend regularly, others are much less so
often a near-empty chamber
discussion in Seanad - ‘dialogue of the deaf’ as those that are contributing do not have many to hear them or their points
when the Seanad is so often empty, reinforces the view that only some Senators actually contribute to the valuable work the Seanad has been entrusted with, + if these Senators rarely contribute to debates, committees or questions, it begs the question of: Is it worth having them there at all?
there are senators who can be counted on to attend + listen diligently, to consider what they hear and construct well-thought-out responses- but difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff
having such a large amount of Senators not contributing or even listening is certainly a failing of the current…

Get Revising