The first step is to douse the ardour – and end Stormont

By Mark Langhammer

In the Spring of 1998, at a time when it looked like no agreement was going to arise from the seemingly endless “Talks”, I sent a “Plan B” to the then Minister for Political Development, Paul Murphy. It was a pamphlet, “Partnership Governance, a Labour Proposal” and its opening lines are worth repeating over five years on. It started:
“There is a fundamental flaw in the Stormont Talks Process. It is that, like every other political initiative in the last twenty five years, It is predicated on the restoration in some form or another, of a Stormont Parliament. Rather than boost partnership and co-operation, a new Stormont system is much more likely to provoke greater antagonism and instability. Rather than “restoring democracy” as some parties claim, it would allow the British and Irish Governments to distance themselves further from their responsibilities”

Five years on, who is right and who is wrong? Stormont was set up in a manner which maximised communal division. It was part of a conscious attempt at “sectarian bloc management” – in the late Paddy Devlin’s words, a form of “institutionalised sectarianism”. The confessional ‘designations’ systems formally set out the tribal camps and the “parallel consent” voting mechanism ensured that the votes of non designated “Others” were worthless. Were that not enough, the Census ensured that no-one could escape tribal designation by the application of inquisitorial and secondary branding questions that would shame the Spanish Inquisition. “Peering into the minds of men”, a la Stormont Hill.
Since the Agreement some things have improved. The conflict, carried out by small groups of activists, has more or less stopped. That’s good.

But the sectarian enmity and conflict has become a much more widespread phenomena. Ceasefire soldiers abound, notably on the Loyalist side. Housing segregation has tightened, paramilitary control and movement into organised crime, (again, particularly on the Loyalist side, where politics were always of marginal concern) has increased, intimidations have increased, engineered confrontations at current and new interfaces has grown, territory is marked out more thoroughly than ever – we are more divided than at any period in history, bar none.
The state funding of communal politics – through MLA salaries, office grants, party research grants and a myriad of patronage and bribery - hasn’t just been glue for “the process”, it has greatly increased the “capacity” of communal protagonists on the ground. As a local councillor, I have noticed that no issue, however small, routine or mundane, cannot be twisted to fuel the sectarian protagonists mindset. “The Taigs are getting oil fire replacement heating, why not us?” “The Orangies got 3 foot fencing and we only got 2 foot picket fences - why are we discriminated against?.” The ground for socialist politics, be assured, has never been more limited.

So, what to do about it? The first step for all progressive people is to recognise that a single unit of devolved government at Stormont has not, does not and will not work. It failed in 1972; it failed in 1974; it failed in 1975; it failed in 1982-86; it failed in 1996 (the Forum); and it failed, despite the goodwill, the bribery and the attention of the world four times between 1998 and 2002. That’s 9 failures in 30 years! We’re in a hole, let’s stop digging!

The long term solution is in developing the politics of government. I was involved for many years in trying, and failing, to establish normal governmental politics within the framework of the UK. I, and others with me, failed. That failure was based mainly on the firm rejection of normal governmental politics by the British political restablishment, but also the rejection of British party politics by the entirety of the Unionist family – UUP, DUP, PUP and UDP. British politics – de facto the British Constitution - was rejected consciously in favour of communal politics. That factor is little appreciated.

Governmental politics is now only likely in an island wide context. I have been involved in persuading the Labour Party to accept members in Northern Ireland. In addition we are to move towards organisation of the Northern membership with the setting up of a NI Labour Forum by December. Set up largely on the same logic as the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, with an island wide organisation, but with a Northern component to tackle the consequences of different jurisdictions, this will not be an electoral vehicle at first – but will, no doubt, aim to become so at some stage.

Of the current Assembly parties, only Sinn Fein aims towards Governmental politics. The SDLP, the UUP, the DUP, the PUP, the Womens Coalition, the Alliance Party are all happy with the dead hand of “Northern Ireland-ism”. Both British Government, whose “arms length” instinct is historically strong, dating from 1912-14, and the Irish Government, whose own “arm’s length” policy dates probably from the Monaghan and Dublin bombings are content with the dead hand of “Northern Ireland-ism” too. Sir Edward Carson, who - from a different perspective - shared Charles Haughey’s “failed entity” view, would roll in his grave.

So Governmental politics isn’t going to wash over sectarianism tomorrow or soon. What about the meantime?
In the meantime we should look to develop administrative and organisation forms which both develop “ground up” working trust and douse sectarian ardour. A simple model would be to forget about Stormont for a generation, ensure that the two Governments collaborated on administrating Northern Ireland fairly within the inter-Governmental framework and, added to that, we could have;

* 8 councils, with increased local powers in Derry, Belfast and 6 counties, with in-built protections around rotation of posts, weighted majorities, etc. The Review of local administration could develop this framework. With bigger, stronger, and more regulated Councils, the sectarian dynamic is dissipated to a much greater degree than in the setpiece environment of Stormont. Councils can also be set up so as no one can walk away – the work has to continue. And substantial operational powers can be devolved.
* If there was desire for greater levels of powers, an Advisory body (like the Executive) to the two Governments could be directly elected. Again, if this did not function or agree, the two Governments would carry on.
* Continue with the cross border bodies and East West bodies, with additional responsibilities to grow organically
* Political representation, through MPs or MEPs to both Westminster and Leinster House, with attendance a voluntary matter
* a generation of governance without high level initiatives.

This framework may help to douse, rather than invigorate, sectarian ardour and allow common sense collaboration to grow, unspectacularly, towards the politics of Government in the longer term.

The views expressed by our contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect that of the editorial committee.

Back to Contents