Seanad reform… redux.

Trust Stephen Collins to come up with an analysis entirely at odds with the editorial of his own paper. For on the Kenny bid to dismember one aspect of our democracy you will read under the heading “Courageous move to slay sacred cow close to the hearts of his supporters” the following…

ENDA KENNY has clearly attempted to capture the mood of an electorate deeply disillusioned with politics and politicians. But he has also demonstrated considerable courage by his willingness to alienate a significant segment of his own parliamentary party.

That’s a viewpoint, no dispute. Of course one might wonder whether an electorate deeply disillusioned with politics and politicians should be treated as if it were sharks circling a boat to be thrown the rich red meat of institutions, which like or loathe them, have had an existence that has spanned both the formation and reformation of this state. And – although I’m dubious of slippery slope arguments – one wonders where that particular dynamic takes us. Next stop local government, or perhaps national representation. Why not, the List system is being dragged out of retirement by the technocrats who loathe the constituency link and are only too keen, as one letter had it in the Irish Times to stuff the Dáil with “some of the greatest minds of Irish society”. And don’t worry about the small problem as to whether those minds are actually, y’know, electable.

No space there for rational engaged discussion – particularly by a man who hardly half a year ago stood over policies that very much retained the Seanad. And indeed it’s disheartening that no effort is made to explain and convince, instead we are treated to the essentially childish nostrum of ‘I’m the leader… I’m leading’.

There’s a part of me that wonders whether this crisis is the answer to the technocrats prayers, a sort of political cover behind which they can iron out the inconsistencies and contradictions that while irritating in a polity often give it both character and space for dissenting voices (btw, I’m not entirely averse to splintered sunrises thoughts on an open List system, but that’s not on the current agenda… – read a bit further down and tombuktu and tgmac have most interesting thought about that here…)

But putting the specific issue aside more telling is the comments Collins makes as regards the ‘politics’ of this. For him it’s not that the matter is one of great principle, as we’ll discover in a moment or so. Nope, this is about macho posturing… I mean of course leadership.

It is one of the truisms of politics that a party leader who aspires to lead the country should demonstrate his fitness for the highest office in the land by slaying a sacred cow close to the hearts of his own supporters

First up, is this a truism? Let’s think back. Neil Kinnock, taking on Militant. Didn’t become British PM. Tony Blair Clause IV. Did. Seems a tad inconsistent. Haughey? FitzGerald? What sacred cows did they slay?

And more to the point what sort of politics is it that can only prove its worth or ‘fitness’ by such excesses? What on earth does it prove? Little or nothing since then politics becomes a process of seeking around to appease those beyond a formation by attacking those within it. Indeed, this is simply cute hoor politics writ large and rephrased in a language a little more appealing to the Irish bien-pensant class.

Does any of this make any great sense? Kenny depends upon Fine Gael to push him across the line. A nascent war within his own party – a situation I doubt will come to pass, but this is the logic of the Collins thesis – doesn’t strike me as the optimal way to enter an election.

More to the point, unlike Kinnock or Tony Blair the jury is still out as to whether Kenny has succeeded. I see that Richard Bruton took a good day to fall in line. That doesn’t suggest to me that this story is over.

Since his election as leader of Fine Gael in 2002, Mr Kenny has had a great deal of success in his role as party leader. He has brought Fine Gael back from the brink of oblivion to a position where it is now the biggest party in the country.
One of the reasons for that is the way he has avoided the internal squabbling that bedevilled the main Opposition party for decades.
He has clearly made a decision that the time for careful party management is over and it is now time to go for broke. The manner in which he announced his plan to abolish the Seanad at a party function, without having it endorsed in advance by his front bench, never mind the Fine Gael parliamentary party was a clear signal of a changed style.

This, clearly, Collins believes is some kind of wonderful. Others might wonder why diktat is appropriate for a man who forged a carefully shaped reputation as a conciliator and consensus builder. And what precisely does ‘go for broke’ mean? The chance of an nearby election appears less likely today than two weeks ago. Perhaps ‘last throw of the dice’ might be a more appropriate configuration.

And the piece lapses into some truly weird stuff…

Mr Kenny clearly knew there would be strong resistance within his parliamentary party to the move so he just went ahead and announced it. That will already have made him some dangerous enemies but he is banking on public support to outweigh the negative response from a section of his parliamentary party.

‘Dangerous enemies’? Paschal Donohoe sitting up Glasnevin way in his lair stroking the white cat seated on his lap as he observes these machinations from an oversize 1960s chair? Unlikely, one would think.

It continues…

“It’s easy for Enda to attack Fianna Fáil but taking on your own crowd is the real test. Enda has done it with his eyes wide open,” said one supporter in the parliamentary party.

One could posit a different thesis, that suddenly FF, for all its woes has as a target vanished from view, so Kenny, looking around fixes upon the only point that is close to hand. His own.

There’s another point. Whatever Collins thinks about a mood of antagonism towards politics that clearly dislikes politics that is a far from uniform sentiment – how else to account for Gilmore’s stratospheric rating (or the genuine pleasure for many when Joe Higgins was elected to the European Parliament). But Collins sort of gives the game away on that score…

Political opponents and cynical observers have accused Mr Kenny of jumping on a populist bandwagon in an effort to recapture ground lost to Eamon Gilmore because of the Labour leader’s role in forcing John O’Donoghue’s resignation. The fact that not only was Mr Kenny’s announcement made without consultation but it actually contradicted things he said only a few months ago has generated a controversy all of its own.
That, however, is to miss the essential point that the public is now crying out for radical action to reform the political system. Fianna Fáil’s courageous Minister Noel Dempsey tried to do it a few years ago but was stymied by lack of support from his leader Bertie Ahern. Given the pain that is going to be inflicted on the whole of society in the budget, reform of the political system is now an absolute imperative if people are to be persuaded of the necessity for sacrifice.

I think this analysis has it the wrong way about. The public detests the government. It is profoundly anxious about NAMA. But the government and NAMA aren’t the political institutions and tinkering or abolishing them will, I suspect, be seen for what it is… a diversion in the scheme of things. Nor does shutting up shop down the Seanad necessarily provide proof that sacrifice is being made. Quite the opposite. Sacred cows are often more akin to lightening rods because they are, in the final analysis expedient. And sacrifices have to be genuine and meaningful to operate on the level Collins suggests.

But it also makes no sense chronologically. If pain is coming in the Budget then Kenny’s avowal that he will seek a referendum within a year of entering office is irrelevant. There’s almost no possibility of an election before the Budget. And after the Budget will be… well… after the Budget.

And it’s interesting that Vincent Browne makes no bones about slicing the analysis to shreds, as when he notes:

On Monday on RTÉ Radio One’s Morning Ireland, he was asked why he had proposed this in advance of full consultation within his party on the issue, when seven months ago the party published a document advocating the reform of the senate, not its abolition. He replied: “The Senate has outgrown its usefulness. I have tried very hard to justify the existence of the Senate over a period . . . its legislative function has faded, particularly since we abolished the dual mandate [ie politicians serving as councillors and parliamentarians]. This is something I have been considering for some time. When I was up at the MacGill Summer School in Glenties in July . . . I made it perfectly clear that I was considering a radical agenda in terms of how we do politics in Ireland. I signalled that . . . I have taken a leader’s initiative in this, and this is what leaders are for . . . This mind is not for changing on this.”

Problem is that as Browne notes:

On RTÉ Radio One’s News at One, Seán O’Rourke played a tape of Kenny’s contribution to MacGill. He said: “I see a new role for the Seanad entirely. The system of voting has got to be changed. Every graduate should be entitled to vote for the Seanad. I see real opportunities for connection with Europe. It should be the forum where MEPs can address the Seanad. It should be able to examine European legislation in a real . . . way. It should be a forum where delegations can come and make their case on national issues, and the whole lot of it should be on a parliamentary [TV] channel.”

And then slipping the knife in he continues:

How this carry-on can be characterised as “courageous” (as it was in this newspaper yesterday) rather than as air-headed opportunism, is unclear to me. A few months ago Enda Kenny was talking excitedly about a new role for the Senate; now, coincidentally, in the wake of his being eclipsed by Eamon Gilmore (and eclipsed cynically) on the John O’Donoghue issue, he seeks attention with a proposal that is entirely at variance with what he was taking about a short time ago. The claim that he had been considering the abolition of the Senate for some time is absurd, that is if “some time” means something more than the day before yesterday.

Indeed.

And in truth the Irish Times editorial also has it absolutely right. There’s no point in short circuiting the reform process by abolition… just ‘cos. Indeed Collins merely points up that there never has been a ‘reform’ process because it has never been permitted. He argues that:

In the face of such inertia the public would have had little sympathy for another review of the system. As Mr Kenny pointed out a number of other European countries, including Sweden, and Denmark have abolished their second houses of parliament and there is no compelling reason to keep ours.

Well, effin’ hell, he’s not so concerned about the lack of sympathy by the public for cuts or tax increases.

And he can’t but admit that:

While there are certainly positive features to the Seanad, and its debates are often more open and informative than those that take place in the Dáil, it is hard to argue that it is worth €25 million a year, given the current state of our national finances.

Still, in his world, a place of catastrophe and big bangs, only the greatest political fireworks will suffice. Whatever the political or social collateral.

But the flawed nature of the analysis is clear in the final two paragraphs:

Subsequently, after the 1989 election [the PDs] not only went back on its commitment but actually accepted seats in the Seanad. Mr Kenny will need to demonstrate that his commitment to abolish the Seanad and go for significant reform of the Dáil is genuine.
In his speech he gave a firm commitment to hold a referendum within a year of getting into government and that is something he will have to honour if he achieves office.

As sonofstan noted, this is almost impossible given that his putative coalition partners will be the Labour Party, who appear in no way wedded to such ‘reform’ of the Seanad. Hard to understand how he can ‘demonstrate his commitment to abolish the Seanad’ in those circumstances and interesting to hear his response to how he would intend to do so.