Greed, Sin and Shame

I have been part of an online project organised by Prof. Conor Gearty at the London School of Economics on the future of human rights (http://www.therightsfuture.org/). Actually, I am not so keen on the term "human rights" for reasons I will get into another time (I prefer "fundamental rights"). One of the most interesting discussions we had was on the relationship between religion and human rights. My view is that the prioritisation of the after life that is a feature of many religions, is inherently problematic for ensuring respect for human rights on earth, as, if this life is only of secondary importance, the person who forces you to live in accordance with what they believe to be the true religion and thereby saves your soul, is actually doing you a favour. Indeed I have often thought that Mormons are really not pushy enough if they believe that I will burn in hell for not converting to their faith.
That said, one of Prof. Gearty's best points is that those in favour of human rights can learn from (or at least draw on) some elements of religious teaching in their struggle. This idea came to me very strongly as I watched the CEO of Barclays Bob Diamond defend the obscene amount of money being paid to senior bankers. There is, obviously, nothing illegal in being paid £8 million as Mr Diamond is. I did however think that there should be more social consequences for demanding such a level of remuneration. Mr Diamond asserts that obsene rewards are necessary to keep top talent. Though abusive and repressive in many ways, the Catholic Church in Ireland has always stressed that greed is wrong (though one of their leading lights, Archbishop McQuaid, lived a life of notable luxury with champagne and hand-rolled cigarettes in the midst of the impoverished Dublin of the 1950s). I think that the idea that greed is shameful is something that we could useful draw from Europe's religious heritage. I was dying for one of the MPs questioning Bob Diamond last week to say "Would you leave Barclays if they paid you less than £8 million?" and if he said yes to follow it up with "Are you not ashamed to be so greedy?". The idea that in business one is entitled to take the very maximum possible and to resort to all strategems that not illegal to gain more money and to defeat one's rivals, is highly corrosive. We do not behave in that way in other areas of life and there is no reason we should do so in business. To ask for £8 million as a annual paypacket constitutes a sin, the sin of greed. The law cannot and should not make everything that is a sin a crime. The price of living in a free society is that people will use their freedom to do unpleasant things. It is a sin, but not a crime to be rude to one's neighbours, unfaithful to one's partner or to let down a friend who needs help. The state cannot punish these  things but society can. There can and should be social consequences for the kind of legal but wrongful behaviour of people like Mr Diamond. He is a greedy and selfish person. He should not be jailed but he should be ashamed, and be made to feel like that by the rest of society.

Seanad Reform

Save for a few years in the mid 1930s, the Irish State has had a bicameral legislature for its entire existence. However, the news that the Labour Party is unlikely to oppose Fine Gael’s proposition for the abolition of the Seanad means that there is now a serious prospect of establishing a durable unicameral system for the first time in our history.

Although the Seanad has often provided more thoughtful debate on legislative matters than the Dáil, in its current form is highly unsatisfactory. It is largely a home for defeated or aspiring politicians whose main focus is not on legislating but on getting out of the Seanad in order to become a TD. In this regard, the Seanad is symptomatic of the wider weakness of the legislative branch. Abolition, however is a simplistic choice that will weaken the already feeble legislative element of our constitutional structures.

Particularly in a small country like Ireland, the existence of a second legislative chamber, and the expense it involves, must be justified by showing that the chamber in question provides something that the other parts of the legislature do not provide.

The existence of more than one legislative chamber in the United States and Germany is justified by the need to ensure equal adequate representation of the various states the legislative process. In Australia, the unfairness to smaller parties of the single member constituencies is somewhat mitigated by the more proportional system used in elections for the Senate while in the United Kingdom, the unelected House of Lords is used both as a source of expertise and a means through which the elected house can be required to think again before passing hasty or populist measures.

One of the lessons of the Ireland’s current crisis is surely that our current political system is sorely deficient in many respects. In particular Dáil Éireann has been repeatedly shown to be almost entirely inadequate as a scrutineer of the both the executive and of proposed legislation.

While some reforms of Dáil procedures may help in this regard, the true problem is much deeper. Our politicians, as has been repeated ad nauseam, are focused on local rather than national issues and the dominance of the executive over the legislature means that the scope for TDs to exercise power or influence as a legislator is minimal.

Given that the system of cabinet government is unlikely to change, it will remain the case that TDs with any national interests and ambitions will continue to aspire to exercise power as ministers rather than investing in their legislative functions.

Changing the electoral system is unlikely to help. The focus of TDs on local issues is as much a result of our clientelist political culture as the  multi-seat electoral system. TDs from smaller parties who do not have running mates spend similar amounts of time on constituency work as colleagues in larger parties and surveys of Australian MPs (who represent single seat constituencies) have indicated that they continue to be inundated with requests for help from constituents.

In short, neither reform of the Dáil or the electoral is likely to enhance the performance of the Dáil as a legislature or bring about the more nationally–focused politics that is so badly needed.

Given these clear gaps in our political system, it is strange that, rather than abolishing the Seanad, the political parties have not given more thought to how the Seanad could be used to address them. A legislative chamber whose members were not focused on winning ministerial office and were beholden to local interests could make a major contribution to national legislation and policy-making.

A proportion of Senators could be elected on national lists, thus removing the constituency element and allowing parties to bring experts into the legislature.

Vocational and civil society bodies could also elect senators directly, thereby bringing a wide range of views and bodies into the legislature. Many such bodies are currently indirectly involved in nominating candidates for Seanad elections so would be well prepared to take on such a task.

An independent body could nominate Seats could also be reserved for retired senior office holders such as former presidents, taoisigh and chief justices as is the case in many other EU member states.

Importantly, those elected to the Senate should be banned from running in the next Dáil election, thus ensuring that it does not become a home for aspirant or defeated TDs. Such a prohibition would ensure that senators would focus on their legislative tasks and their duty to hold the executive to account rather than on manoeuvering to obtain a place within the executive.

Such a body would, obviously, not be entirely democratic. Nor should it be, it should have only the power of delay and should not be capable of challenging the supremacy of the popularly elected Dáil.

What such a reformed Seanad would be is a major contribution to the enriching of our parliamentary democracy with the expertise, national focus and commitment to legislating and holding the government to account which it currently so clearly lacks.