Monday 1 July 2013

The Death Agony of The Seanad and Classic Liberalism in Ireland.



One might easily sympathize with Senator David Norris.  A man for the people, but sadly not of the people. And if you are not of the people, you may sympathize with them, but never empathize; this is the crux of the argument about the abolition of the Seanad.  It has represented an institution of sympathy without any representation of empathy, because it has no representation on a meaningful level that is of the People.  Its representatives are elected only by a select few universities or nominated by Government parties, but few are actually elected by the public.

Norris is the stereotype of an honorable yet naive liberal who has philosophized, struggled for and believed in a "noble" but illusionary concept of "gentlemanly" democracy, and has paradoxically been betrayed by it as the Oireachteas mutilates itself.  Norris is absolutely right in his description of the Dáil's true reasons for attempting to abolish the Seanad.  The Government does so, not in an attempt to reform the Oireachtas and improve democracy, but to avoid those very ("irritating") things.  Norris is the victim of the very system he supports.  He has probably failed to realize the irony of this.

No one who purports to believe in a republic of liberal democracy can vote to abolish the Seanad, it would be absolute hypocrisy to do so.  Of course, this writer does not believe in liberal democracy (it has failed us time and time again), but socialist democracy, hence I will argue for the Seanad's abolition, but for much more different reasons than those of the current Government.  Most ordinary people realize the limits of the Seanad.  Simultaneously however, they are likely to believe the populist hype of the right-wing parties for its abolition, rather than to see their true motives behind it.  For those right-wingers, it is indeed a 'power-grab'.

Of course, the Seanad should be abolished, but if you are convinced by the arguments of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, then it is not for the reasons which you might think; that it is "inefficient" and "inaffective"; as if the Dáil has been any better.  The Seanad should be abolished because it limits the democracy of us to control our own democratic institutions by ourselves - which would be a truly democratic achievement.  The Seanad has failed to provide the check and balance it was supposed to provide because it did not realize, or turned a blind eye, to the contradictions of its own modus operandi which have paralyzed it.  Inevitably it has failed, because it cannot possibly combat the interests of capitalism.  It was always in a losing battle.  If arguments were ever made on behalf of the majority of citizens by senators, it would have been argued by those in the lower house that the economy could not afford those measures.  This is very fact is highlighted by Norris in the video above as he explains how the Government's economic policy would be disastrous, but they did not heed the advice.  Norris' frustration to get the Dáil to act on recommendations has evidently brought him to an emotional realization of the futility of his efforts. The upper house was never going to be a method or tool of meaningful or lasting change.

The Seanad should be abolished because it belongs to an entire system which should be replaced, in turn by a true democratic & economic system under the control of the people, and not just a privileged elite.  Fine Gael, on the other hand, seek to guillotine the Seanad as it interferes with their ability to pass measures which are against the interests of the Irish people, and the Seanad represents an annoying obstacle in its efficiency to do so.  The Government will not do this to increase the power you hold as an individual or as a collective citizenship, it does so for the very opposite.  In this regard, Norris is correct in his reference to Enda Kenny as a 'Little Napoleon'.

The Seanad represents a system of privilege, which was established, in theory, to protect democracy and citizens from the corruption which may result from giving too much power to one house (the Dáil).  However, rather than representing the interests of people directly, it merely sympathizes with ordinary people, and implements, or at least tries to implement, half measures which inevitably never protect the people against austerity or the damage of profiteering by massive corporations and private monopolies; in fact, more often than not it adds fuel to the flame of exploitation, either by delayed measures against it, or by actually encouraging the neo-liberal agenda.  The Seanad acts as an institution, at best, for 'gentlemen "reformers"' (to quote Trotsky) who offer no serious, non-trivial solution to economic or democratic matters of ordinary people.  At worst it is an institution filled with privileged conservatives disconnected and disinterested of the realities of ordinary people.

The Seanad was conceived by some to be a minimal tool of ensuring power is kept in check, and perhaps it has sought to do so, but in vain, and from a disconnected standpoint.  The senators may continue to ever-so-slowly urge through recommendations and reforms which are often abstract from people on the ground (as Norris explains in his speech, bills are purposely convoluted).  As it does so, it is torn apart at a far quicker rate by the system it is trying to reform.  Meanwhile, the important struggles continue in the homes, streets and workplaces of people themselves, unannounced or recognized by privileged society or corporate media, but growing nonetheless.

No comments:

Post a Comment