Closeted in a room in the Shelbourne Hotel exactly 100 years ago was a committee in a hurry. Tasked with framing a constitution for the new Free State, the nine-man committee had to consider the three weighty and competing claims of democracy, nationalism and imperialism in trying to establish the fundamental law on which the new state could be built.
The committee, composed of legal experts, civil servants, a writer and an academic, was nominally chaired by Michael Collins, but he was far too preoccupied with other matters to attend meetings after the inaugural one. At that meeting he told the members they were “the people charged with the most important task – more important than the Treaty itself . . . it was a question of status and they wanted to define and produce a free democratic constitution. They were to bear in mind, not the legalities of the past, but the practicalities of the future.”
This was somewhat disingenuous; by implying they could ignore the Treaty he was refusing to acknowledge that if this constitution did not fulfil the obligations stipulated in the Treaty it would be rejected by Britain. Desperate to avoid civil war, Collins had privately reassured anti-Treaty republicans the new constitution would affirm republican values and be shorn of imperial connections.
As the Seanad was recast in the late 1930s, the impulse was to dilute the importance of other voices
In the event, this would not fly, and the failure to include mention of the crown or oath of allegiance created fury in London and an Irish climbdown to bring it back in line with the Treaty. The Constitution nonetheless contained the assertion of the centrality of the sovereignty of the people, guaranteed equal suffrage for women (“all citizens of the Free State without distinction of sex who have reached the age of 21” could vote), and the right, through petition of at least 70,000 citizens, of “the initiation by the people of proposals for laws and constitutional amendments”, an article abolished in 1928.
Will the Army ever be given the financial capacity to protect this island?
Diarmaid Ferriter: Old-age pension is about much more than money
Diarmaid Ferriter: Fianna Fáil now bereft of its catch-all credentials
Diarmaid Ferriter: Will an Garda Síochána tackle sordid aspects of its own history during centenary?
Democratic principles
What was also insisted at the outset, as articulated by Collins, was that a bi-cameral legislature was essential to give voice to southern unionists. The committee, however, was not so sure. Darrell Figgis, acting chairman in Collins’s absence, had no time for a senate: “a good one cannot operate and a bad one is worse than useless”. A nominated second chamber or one chosen by limited franchise, he believed, would violate the democratic principles of the Constitution. There was robust discussion among committee members about senate composition and a mixture of nominated members, the need for vocational representation and election of members by the Dáil. Its potential powers were also debated, with a consensus that it should not be permitted to exercise a veto but should be empowered to initiate legislation (except in financial matters) and should have powers of legislative revision.
The earlier senates, with their mixture of directly elected and nominated members, gave a platform to unionists, and facilitated debates – about women, divorce, censorship and penal reform for example – that were less likely in the Dáil. But as the Seanad was recast in the late 1930s, the impulse was to dilute the importance of other voices, cynically exploit the vocational aspiration and bolster the government’s primacy and control.
Commemoration banner
As it approaches its centenary, the Seanad’s cathaoirleach, Mark Daly, has unveiled a commemoration banner: “Minority Voices, Major Changes”. But Daly seemed to underline the hollowness of that slogan by suggesting this week that the current father of the house, David Norris, has often been the “sole voice for minorities” in the Oireachtas.
The representation of unionists is another issue that carries contemporary charge given the noise around Irish unity
After so many plans and promises for reform of the Seanad over decades, and a failed and cynical attempt in 2013 to abolish it without proposing reform as an alternative to abolition, surely, as well as looking back, a major theme for the centenary should be to address the contemporary relevance of the issues highlighted at the outset by that small committee in the Shelbourne. The farce of the limited franchise, including the ridiculously incomplete third-level franchise, and its violation of democratic principles, makes a mockery of the idea of the Seanad as a forum for “other voices”. The representation of unionists is another issue that carries a particular contemporary charge given the noise around the prospect of Irish unity. And 100 years on, what of other 21st-century minorities?
Reform of the Seanad requires the dynamic support of a sitting government, and senators do not have the power to reform their chamber without the co-operation of the executive. The current taoiseach, who supported retention of the Seanad in 2013, was quoted after the referendum that year: “people want reform and we took a stance on the issue”. Stances, of course, are easy; dramatically shaking up the 100-year-old Seanad requires something much braver. And has it never occurred to those in a position to pilot reform that the Seanad could, if the will was there, become a permanent citizens’ assembly?