The average Irish person is completely disenfranchised from the Seanad’s electoral process. Seanad Éireann is Ireland’s senate, which is also known as the upper house of the Oireachtas. With the Seanad’s elections commencing this January 15th, criticism of its morally ambiguous voting requirements has once again dominated public discourse. For decades, the Irish government has defended and upheld the current Seanad structure, despite the significant threat it poses to the democratic legitimacy of our country and the disenfranchisement it has instilled in many Irish people.
The function of Seanad Éireann is, in essence, an extension of the Dáil. It facilitates further debate on Dáil issues, and hence is capable of proposing amendments to Dáil bills. The Seanad may delay, but not block, a Dáil bill from being passed for up to 180 days. Furthermore, it may propose bills of its own, although such bills must also receive Dáil approval. An example of this is the Intoxicating Liquor (Amendment) Act of 2018 which legalised the sale of alcohol on Good Friday – a long awaited progression for secular Ireland.
Therefore with respect to its function, clearly the Seanad can be of benefit to Irish politics despite the limited power it employs. Operating in tandem with the Dáil, the Seanad works to represent the voices and interests of Irish people. So why is the average Irish person being represented by someone they did not elect? There is an obvious democratic deficit at play.
The process of electing senators to the Seanad is notoriously complicated, illogical and undemocratic. It has created the capacity for cronyism and elitism to flourish among the politically powerful in Ireland.
Of the 60 available seats, eleven are directly nominated by the Taoiseach of the day. These nominations must occur within the 90 days following the Dáil elections; therefore the Taoiseach often embraces this opportunity to hand a lucrative job to any of his or her party members who fell short of entering the Dáil. Quite convenient indeed. Hence a paradigm arises whereby unsuccessful Dáil candidates are handed the very thing that they were publicly denied; a seat in Leinster House. Not only does this undermine the process of a general election, it operates in direct opposition to the values of democracy.
This cronyism culture has also infiltrated the election process responsible for electing a further 43 senators. These senators are voted upon by members of the outgoing Seanad, members of the incoming Dáil, and members of county and city councils. As you can imagine, many electors in this constituency are more occupied with securing ‘jobs for the boys’ than voting according to public interest.
Lastly, the final six candidates are voted in by graduates of various third level institutions – currently these only include Trinity College Dublin and the National University of Ireland (UCD, UCC, UoG, Maynooth).
University of Limerick graduate Tomás Heneghan took a case against various public bodies under the claim that his ineligibility to vote in Seanad elections is unconstitutional, unlawful and in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. After the High Court ruled against Heneghan in November 2021, the UL graduate appealed directly to the Supreme Court. In a 6:1 judgement, the Supreme Court overwhelmingly ruled in favour of Heneghan, giving the respective bodies until May 31st 2025 to amend the Seanad voting rules in light of the Court’s unconstitutional findings.
Great progress has been made, with April 1st 2025 being the date on which a new register of electors will be created, this time including graduates of an additional fifteen third level institutions. However, in terms of the January 2025 elections, the usual TCD and NUI graduates are the only eligible electors. The graduates of other third level institutions will have to wait until the next Seanad election in 2030, despite Heneghan’s successful legal pursuit.
This is of course quite a shame, but perhaps even more regrettable, is the fact that one must be a university graduate to begin with. Such a blatantly elitist rule sends an audacious message to the people of Ireland that the judgement of university graduates is of higher value to society than that of any other citizen. Not only is this biased and untrue, it also highlights the hypocrisy of a country who discriminates against non-university graduates from participating in a political system led by none other than a non-university graduate: Simon Harris.
However, even if this portion of the vote was to be extended to the entire population regardless of their education – it still only elects 10% of senators. The remaining 90% is still voted in by politicians or nominated by the Taoiseach. Elitism and exclusion is systemically ingrained into the very fabric and framework of Seanad Éireann, and a full restructuring of the institution is long overdue.
Ambition to abolish, rather than reform, the Seanad has also been prevalent amongst criticism in recent years. A referendum on the abolition of the Seanad took place in 2013, narrowly deciding that the Seanad would remain by a 52% to 48% vote. The Socialist Party campaigned in favour of Seanad abolition with the poignant slogan “Make Your First Seanad Vote The Last’. For the majority of Irish people the 2013 referendum was their ‘first Seanad vote’ due the incredibly exclusive voting requirements in place for Seanad elections. Quite ironic of the Irish government to democratically ask citizens whether a starkly undemocratic national institution that they have been disenfranchised from is worth keeping. Yet all considered, I believe that to completely abolish the Seanad would be a great loss to Irish politics. But reform is desperately needed.
Many visions of Seanad reform have been thrown about in recent years, but unsurprisingly nothing has shifted. With 90% of the Seanad vote being controlled by politicians, it should be of no surprise that politicians have not prioritised the development of a more inclusive voting system; it’s been working perfectly fine for them.
This is why I wholeheartedly support the actions of those such as Tomás Heneghan, as small but focused public pressure will ultimately be the source of change and improvement for the Seanad. In terms of how the reformed Seanad would look, I believe it should be open to all citizens. The PR-STV (Proportional Representation – Single Transferable Vote) voting system used in general elections for the Dáil is incredibly effective and democratic, however I believe that this should be applied to a single nationwide constituency to avoid the Seanad becoming a mirror of the Dáil and hence losing its individual effectiveness and identity.
With all of this being said, it is important to acknowledge the valuable aspects of the current Seanad that we may risk losing if reform does occur. Nominated by Taoiseach Micheál Martin in 2020, Eileen Flynn became the first Traveller to serve in the Oireachtas. Travellers, like many minority groups, face many societal barriers to participating in politics and hence are deprived of a voice in political discourse. Therefore Senator Eileen Flynn’s presence in the Seanad represents Ireland’s movement away from political polarisation of the Traveller community. Could these beneficial developments become stifled if the Taoiseach’s nominations are abolished? Perhaps.
This is the reason why a reformed Seanad should employ minority quotas, similar to the gender quotas of the Dáil, if it wishes to truly maximise its function as a representative, democratic institution. Democracy requires diversity, and the only way to guarantee diversity is through the use of quotas.
I believe that the Seanad should be granted more power, especially if it is to seriously fulfil its duty to challenge and supervise the work of the Dáil. The Seanad should be able to block bills from passing into law, as opposed to only being capable of delaying them. This has the potential to transform the Seanad from Ireland’s most elitist institution to Ireland’s most inclusive tool to achieving true democracy.
