HistoryHub
Connecting past and present
If the Government was proposing a radical overhaul of our political system and starting with a blank canvass, would a second chamber be an essential component of a reformed system? I don’t believe they would and that is why I favour abolishing the Seanad altogether.
The proposal to abolish the Seanad, without even considering its reform will, if successful, inevitably result in the concentration of governance in the hands of fewer, without any chance of meaningful oversight and scrutiny of what they are doing.
The referendum on the abolition of Seanad Éireann might be thought of a sort of Hobson’s choice – a choice between two unappealing options. Some people claim they want a reformed upper house in Ireland, but the choice the people are offered is one between abolition or retention of the status quo. The ability to …
Seanad abolition is no threat to our democracy – more an opportunity Read More »
In this paper, Elaine Byrne argues that reform of the Seanad can only ever be achieved by the impetus of the Taoiseach of the day; a point acknowledged by the current incumbent’s own proposals. The Seanad has had, however, one meaningful reform in its
history – the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Act, 1947.
This paper explores the international and historical justifications for the existence of upper houses, arguing that the function of the Irish upper chamber should remain representative and advisory rather than federal or for safeguarding purposes as in other legislative systems.
