Letter to the Taoiseach on Seanad reform

Dear Taoiseach,
I am writing to you about the recently defeated referendum.

Firstly, I was incredibly disappointed with the outcome of the vote, and I cannot believe the electorate has voted to keep this purposeless, undemocratic second-house. I offer my genuine sympathy, as I know that this was a difficult bill to pass through the houses and would never have gone before the people without your personal commitment, even when it was against your own personal interests.

Specifically, I am writing to you about reform of the Seanad. There will be many calls for reform of the Seanad in coming months. Doubtless something will have to be done, but I want to urge extreme caution about reforming it. No reform is better than the wrong reform. In particular, I would be highly sceptical about reforming the Seanad to any variant of a direct election model, as I believe that would give rise to conflict between the 2 chambers and could be a significant impediment to future decisionmaking. If we look at examples of parliaments with 2 directly elected chambers, there is a real danger for political deadlock between them -The United States and Italy are only 2 prime examples.

One thing that our present constitution has is a single powerful voice -that of the Dail- and giving the Seanad equal status (which would inevitably follow from direct elections) would split that voice and could only be an advantage to obstructionists to all future legislative reform measures. It would simultaneously double the obstacles to future reform measures too. Controversial bills would never pass.

I recognise that you must do something though, partly because there will be demands for it, and partly because the Seanad as it stands is so repulsive to democracy. But I urge you to be very careful not to deliver us to a situation of political gridlock between the 2 houses.

I would propose the following scheme as being moderately reformist and politically defensible, without permitting the Seanad to challenge the democratic voice of the Dail:
-introduce a rule that noone who has ever sat in the Dail can stand for election to the Seanad.
-extend the university elections to all graduates.
-introduce a gender quota for the Seanad.

This would go someway to making the Seanad less of a political parking space for TDs that have been ousted by the electorate. However, I wouldn't obstruct young aspiring politicians to have a term in the Seanad as I don't think it's entirely useless for them to learn something of parliamentary process. This would be especially the case if there was a gender quota, which could eventually lead to a more gender balanced selection of serious Dail candidates. Extending the vote to all graduates is simply reflecting popular demand, though personally, I find it repulsive that anyone should have a second vote simply because they are educated. However, it seems realistically unavoidable.

More importantly, this scheme would reduce the misuse of the seanad by political parties without creating a schizophrenic parliament with 2 authorative voices (like Italy's). That must be prevented at all costs.

sincerely