Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

As far as I am concerned, the Seanad must be abolished. There is no justification for the current set-up, which is elitist, is not representative of the majority of people and has not had any serious political function on behalf of the citizens. Consequently, it must go. Most Members, in one way or other, have accepted this in the course of the debate. While there is a question before Members as to whether it should simply be abolished and left at that or whether there should be some other tier of democracy or other new democratic institutions to replace it, there can be no doubt but that the existing set-up must go.

However, before one addresses that question, one must ask the reason Members today are discussing the abolition of the Seanad in the first place. The reason they are doing so is that politics as a whole, not just the Seanad, has been thoroughly discredited. People are deeply alienated from politics and are extremely angry at politicians right across the political spectrum. To be honest, there are times when, were people given the opportunity, they would not simply abolish the Seanad but would abolish the Dáil as well and probably the local councils. That is where we are, and that is the level of anger and alienation that exists with regard to the political system. I must state that were Members being honest, they would admit that this anger is justified. As to the reason that anger exists, it is because the current political system brought us to this unprecedented economic crisis. At best, it did little to prevent it from occurring and at worst, most people would state that the political set-up in this country facilitated it. They would refer to the culture of cronyism, personal ambition and following one's own personal interests ahead of the interests of society as a whole, which was present among developers, bankers and certain corporate interests, and would state that this culture crossed over into and was facilitated by the political establishment and the political structures in the State. This is what most people think, and they have a point.

People also would state, as a common observation on politics, that no matter whom one elects one always gets the same government, and nothing ever changes. Politicians make and then break promises and people have no way to make them accountable for that. One of the most powerful sentiments that is driving rage against the political system at present is the belief that politicians and the political system operate in such a way that they can play fast and loose with the trust of the people in order to get themselves into position but can then protect themselves from any degree of accountability. The belief is that politicians, who have regularly done this to people, cannot be recalled or held responsible for so doing. In addition, since at least the time of the former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, and the beef scandals, there has been an entire litany - a relentless line - of scandals involving graft, corruption, cronyism and so on. People would say that at best the political system has failed to prevent this, and at worst it has been responsible for it. It has facilitated all of that and has engendered a political culture and a political class that is rank and rotten and has little to do with representing the needs, wishes and aspirations of ordinary people.

Consequently, this debate should be about how to achieve a real democracy that functions and in which politicians are accountable. It should be about how to achieve a democracy that eliminates the potential for corruption or cute-hoor politics and in which politicians can be held accountable for the promises they made when going before the people. It should be about how to achieve a democracy that will ensure we are not plunged into the sort of economic crisis this State is in at present. It is important to point out that these are old problems. In the context of the Private Members' debate earlier this week on the 1913 Lock-out, I read through some articles written by James Connolly at the turn of the century. While he was apparently writing about a different constitution and a different political set-up at that time - namely, British rule - if one reads the article one sees resonances that are simply astonishing. Allow me to read out a few brief passages. Connolly talks about the power of the Cabinet and states:

The cabinet formed out of the members of the party strongest numerically constitutes the government of the country and as such has full control of our destinies during its term of office. But the Cabinet is not elected by Parliament, voted for by the people nor chosen by its own party. The Cabinet is chosen by the gentleman chosen ... as the leader of the strongest party. The gentleman so chosen ... selects certain of his own followers and invests them with certain positions, and salaries and so forms the Cabinet.

While Connolly rightly rails against this, 100 years on nothing has changed. Moreover, he was talking about a colonial parliament imposed on this country.

The problem of immense amounts of power concentrated in a Cabinet that does not even have constitutional status and that essentially can impose its will by fiat on the Parliament and on the population in general persists 100 years on, even after we got so-called independence. Connolly further states:

The powers of Parliament are...arbitrary and ill-defined.

If Parliament, elected to carry out the wishes of the electors on one question, chooses to act in a manner contrary to the wishes of the electors in a dozen other questions, the electors have no redress except to wait for another general election to give them the opportunity to return other gentlemen under similar conditions and with similar opportunities of evil-doing.

It is archaic language but the Minister gets the point. Nothing has changed from what Connolly described. That is what people feel.

See this speech in context