Northern Ireland’s future course must be set by its people, not its politicians – The Irish Times

In one of its lesser-known works, the Good Friday Agreement created a 60-person Citizens’ Forum to advise Northern Irish political leaders on social, economic and cultural issues. It began in 2000. It met just 12 times.

The body, whose members included representatives from business, trade unions and the voluntary world, was disbanded in 2002 when the Stormont institutions collapsed. Years later politicians talked about bringing it back. In truth, they had no interest in it coming back.

Today, there is a need for just such a body, but perhaps not only one that would focus on the views of representatives from across the spectrum of Northern Ireland society on life there, but also on North-South relations and the relationship between Ireland and Great Britain.

At present, the political environment in Northern Ireland is more of an obstacle than a help to such positive change. Indeed, the measure of progress of a significant minority is still judged by the extent to which they discriminate against and thereby devalue their opponents.

If this perspective dominates, persists, or succeeds, then the chances for a better society for all are slim. But how can positive relationships realistically develop and progressive change occur in such an environment?

It is obvious that this is highly unlikely. If this is the case, then perhaps it would be wise to look beyond the current political system to other forms of influence and other forms of opinion that could help achieve much-needed progress.

It should come as no surprise that Jim Allister, the current MP for Westminster, chose the name Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) when he founded his organisation in 2007, since it was founded as a protest movement.

Then as now its aim is to “bring back the Union”. TUV makes resistance rather than reform its primary objective. It is no wonder that the party’s 2024 manifesto makes no mention of relations with Dublin, and emphasis is placed on the threats to the unionist way of life.

The emphasis of TUV is not based on a cooperative or pragmatic motivation, but on the preservation and continuity of identity. Here the emphasis is on strength and principles as evidence of integrity and credibility, the measure of which is immutability, identity and inertia.

While this perspective may seem attractive to those who believe that the past can be protected and defended, it reveals a fundamental flaw that characterizes many trade union movements: an inability to understand the value of change and cooperation as drivers of progress.

TUV may represent a minority union, but as an example of contemporary unionist political expression its message remains surprisingly consistent with the general inability to express hope and confidence in a different, better future.

In this sense, the party truly stands for tradition.

However, such pessimism is not without context. Northern Ireland has not had a decade of uninterrupted government since 1998. Similarly, the majority voting system created at St Andrews has perpetuated conflictual and divisive positions.

Given all this, it is not surprising that the negative messages so common in Northern Ireland politics continue to resonate and retain their appeal. Such messages reflect expectations of rejection and intransigence.

The Northern Ireland Civic Forum agreed in the Good Friday Agreement to bring together 60 representatives of civil society to debate social and political issues. In doing so, it offered a basis for cooperation and consensus beyond politics, enabling wider consideration of points of disagreement.

The Civic Forum, as envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement, operated for just two years from 2000 to 2002 before being disbanded and never revived. Interestingly, the idea was proposed again in 2001, this time with the aim of improving North-South relations. Again, it achieved nothing.

Supporters of the idea at the time believed it would reflect the complexity of the social and political relationships that ran through all three strands of the agreement – ​​North/South, East/West and within Northern Ireland.

Citizens’ forums that jointly and separately explore each of these relationships could join forces to challenge political blockages and build better relationships across Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and between the Republic and the United Kingdom.

Significantly, Sinn Féin, like the Democratic Unionist Party, welcomed the dissolution of the Citizens’ Forum, as they viewed it as an unnecessary obstacle to the exercise of power and control, as did their Unionist political partners.

In both cases, the politics of division are preferable to coalition-type political representation. However, given the divisions that still exist in Northern Ireland, the case for greater cooperative structures remains compelling.

Failing to think in terms of the needs of all communities in a way that reflects the values ​​of citizenship and the common good, political change in Northern Ireland has been hampered by an emphasis on difference rather than commonality, on irreconcilability rather than compatibility.

Closer interaction through three separate but interconnected forums offers the opportunity to resolve disagreements and differences in a way that cannot be achieved within a political divide that works against, rather than for, collective interests.

Positive work on issues relating to sectarianism, diversity, reconciliation, public service and political accountability is urgently needed and a citizens’ forum can deliver the progress that the divided politics of Northern Ireland have failed to deliver.

The conflict between arguments about a United Ireland and debates about the United Kingdom dominates political decision-making and attitudes in Northern Ireland, and it is difficult to see progress when issues of national identity frame and constrain the discussion.

Focusing on issues less burdened by the unilaterality of territorial claims requires a constructive approach to mutual concerns, offering a way to broaden the debate beyond the narrow confines of zero-sum political games.

While for Sinn Féin tradition is prioritised through the new language of transformation (agreed, shared, mutual, multicultural), for many Unionists such transformation is at odds with tradition. Given that this terrain is so strongly articulated by Republicans, many Unionists fear it and reject it.

Of course, this indicates the strength of division. It also underscores the need for alternatives. If adopted, the new approach of open debates in a way that directly addresses everyday problems, offering tangible and demonstrable solutions, could make relationships less toxic.

New civic bodies capable of strengthening cooperation and relationships can bypass the predictable hostility and antagonism of politics. In such a climate, politics are too important to be left to politicians. Now is the time to get people back in the game, to build for all.

Graham Spencer is Professor of Social and Political Conflict at the University of Portsmouth