Saturday, June 27, 2009
“this will be the case for as long as the new dispensation lasts”
In an article in the Irish News today [no subs req], Patrick Murphy makes some important points about the Northern Ireland Assembly’s compulsory power-sharing system. From the Irish News article.
In the old Stormont, the opposition was ignored. In the new Stormont, the opposition has been abolished. How democratic is a parliament without an opposition? Advocates of the new system argue that it brings political benefits. But does it? It gives constitutional authority to sectarianism and promotes political schizophrenia. Both the DUP and Sinn Féin claim the other is the enemy, within a supposedly partnership government. Do nationalists benefit by having nationalist ministers? For example, would our roads policy be different if Arlene Foster replaced Conor Murphy as regional development minister?
If Murphy’s ministry has benefitted nationalists, then the minister must be acting unfairly - and there is not the slightest evidence that he is. So if his position has not benefitted nationalists and Arlene Foster would do the job with the same degree of competence and fairness, what is the case for compulsory power-shairing? The argument that it offers fairer government is undermined by our mountain of equality legislation. If that legislation is as effective as we are led to believe, there cannot be an abuse of democracy within the law, no matter who holds power.
He goes on to ask a key question
So would an end to compulsory power-sharing be democratic? As usual in this country, it comes down to whether you believe in Protestant democracy or Catholic democracy. Irish history tends to be a rerun of the same events.
Sometimes those events are repeated in reverse. In 1965 some Labour MPs formed the Campaign for Democracy in Ulster, a forerunner of the civil rights campaign. Jim Allister might give his campaign that same name.
Demands for democracy here have traditionally come from nationalists. But for the first time in the history of the state, most nationalists will presumably oppose a campaign for a more democratic Stormont. Their reasoning will make interesting reading.
Meanwhile, the International Representative for west Belfast, Sinn Féin’s Gerry Adams, MP, MLA, has set out his reasoning, such as it is, for why he believes that those who “toy with the idea that the system of governance can be changed” are “living in Fantasy Land.”
Because this is a sectarian state and because unionism could not be trusted to govern fairly the outcomes of the Good Friday Agreement and the Saint Andrews Agreement are all-Ireland in nature particularly in their institutions.
There are also many equality and other legal safe guards built into the new political dispensation. These include compulsory power sharing and partnership political arrangements.
Thinking unionism knows that this will be the case for as long as the new dispensation lasts and fair minded unionist MLAs have slowly but surely come to terms with this reality. They fulfil their political duties in a positive way. They also appreciate that these safeguards are to their advantage as the constitutional position changes in the future.
And how are you going to get there, again?
But Adams fails to address the core issue of whether compulsory or voluntary power-sharing is more preferrable and/or more democratic.
To quote again from Patrick Murphy
compulsory power-sharing emerged from secret political negotiations to secure the state’s existence rather than as part of a campaign for democracy. So how democratic is the new system? The short answer is - not very.
And, from what I recall, there wasn’t much reasoning in evidence in the responses to a previous suggestion that we should aspire to remove the “ugly scaffolding”..
Regardless of the actual system of governance in use what is required is a processs of civilisation. [Happy Birthday Michael! - Ed]
But if you don’t trust your compulsory partners in government, and you view the very state itself, which you are helping to govern, as being “sectarian at its core”...
Pete Baker @ 05:00 PM
“In the old Stormont, the opposition was ignored. In the new Stormont, the opposition has been abolished.”
More accurately, in the old Stormont, one of NI’s two nations was excluded from government. In the new Stormont, both of NI’s two nations are included in government.
“How democratic is a parliament without an opposition?”
Some would argue that consociationalism is the most democratic form of government possible precisely because it unites the majority under a power-sharing banner, whereas majoritarinism is a less democratic form of government precisely because it excludes more democratically elected members of parliament from government than consociationalism. So, the real questions are not if consociationalism is democratic (it is) or whether the lack of an effective opposition is undemocratic (it isn’t), but which form of government is (a) most suited to the applicable circumstances, and (b) which form of government is the most effective.
“Advocates of the new system argue that it brings political benefits. But does it? It gives constitutional authority to sectarianism and promotes political schizophrenia.”
I wonder what his definition of sectarianism is? Sectarianism actually means discriminating against a person based on his religion, and thereby depriving him of some legitimate right. Does he have any evidence that the present system does this? Most sensible observers would see that it is designed to do exactly the opposite. The system that he favours, majoritarianism, was designed to give a “constitutional authority to sectarianism.”
“Both the DUP and Sinn Féin claim the other is the enemy, within a supposedly partnership government.”
Yup, and neither of them figured that symbiotic political strategy out for themselves. The British government promoted both of those extremes by playing both nations against each other. By giving SF “sweeties” in private side deals, the nationalists saw that the Shinners could deliver more for them than the SDLP and so they voted for the Shinners. The same tactic was used to promote the DUP. This shows that the two nations are still competing with each other, and do not operate as one nation with a mutual interest.
“Do nationalists benefit by having nationalist ministers? For example, would our roads policy be different if Arlene Foster replaced Conor Murphy as regional development minister?”
No, since both nations generally support a policy of keeping the roads nicely tarmaced and of not allowing sewerage to mix with the public water supply, etc, so the problem isn’t with areas of government where the two nations are united on policy but rather on areas where they are divided. The policies of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, for example, are far more contentious and subject to the discretion of relevant minister, so they would be different according to which nation the minister belongs and to the culture he is naturally disposed toward.
“If Murphy’s ministry has benefitted nationalists, then the minister must be acting unfairly - and there is not the slightest evidence that he is.”
Ah, so Patrick Murphy sees that politics in NI is a zero-sum game where one nation gains at the expense of the other nation - a ‘benefit’ for nationalists must be ‘unfair’ to unionists, and vice versa. Therein lies his own “political schizophrenia” since he is arguing that the two nations are capable of operating as one nation under a form of government that is designed for one nation (majoritarianism) and should abandon the form of government that is designed for two nations (consociationalism).
“The argument that it offers fairer government is undermined by our mountain of equality legislation. If that legislation is as effective as we are led to believe, there cannot be an abuse of democracy within the law, no matter who holds power.”
Then why should anyone be elected to government at all if they have no discretionary power and if all is now decided by quangos and courts? No, nations still have powers to determine their own affairs (admittedly, democracy is very much weakened in its present state but these nations will act to reclaim their sovereign and democratic powers in due course), and so these nations will still use their rights to self-determination to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
When you have one nation, then you can have one-nation government. Until then, you’re stuck with how best to manage the conflicting demands of two seperate nations who are competing with each other for control of one state.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 08:05 PMI have never believed what we have is democracy for anyone here. A government where is everyone is tied into the government is not government. In NI the only opposition of note is the Alliance party and they are soon to be absorbed as well.
This means that the only alternative for an opposition is the press and the intelligensia. In NI the press are dependent on the parties for information and interviews and therefore tend to follow the big party lines - Robinson and Mguiness’s letter to the Belfast Tele and Reid, Devenport et alia slavish following of the DUP line in the EU election are indications of what is happening.
The result is there is no opposition, apart from the intelligensia, to what the executive do and in the current situation this really means the DUP/SF alliance. The leaders of the CBI, NICC Professors etc and some of the posters on Slugger are the de facto opposition but do not get their message out to the public only to small groups of anoraks.
We need a voluntary coalition where some of the parties can go into a funded opposition. The purpose of this would not be to specifically exclude anyone but to give us good government where the ruling parties are held to account. At the moment the SDLP, UUP and Alliance would make a formidable opposition to the DUP and SF and we might see some policies and direction instead of continual disagreement.
Will we see it? No, it is not in the interests of the DUP and SF to be left alone in Government together, The DUP could not stand the further fallout in their electorate that it would surely bring and SF do not want to find more ministers that they do not have.
So don’t hold you breath as long they are in charge the people of NI will not have a proper democracy.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 08:06 PMDave
I’m guessing you haven’t access to the full article, but you mis-characterise Partick Murphy’s argument.
I’ll just pick up on one point.
“The argument that it offers fairer government is undermined by our mountain of equality legislation. If that legislation is as effective as we are led to believe, there cannot be an abuse of democracy within the law, no matter who holds power.”
Then why should anyone be elected to government at all if they have no discretionary power and if all is now decided by quangos and courts?
They have discretionary powers, within legal confines.
In Ireland those legal confines have always been the Constitution.
Here there are other confines, which do not yet include a Bill of Rights.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 08:13 PMDave,
I am for once in complete agreement.
On the broader level we must ask ourselves if there is a need for an opposition.
On a more realistic level, we must accept that NI is not an ordianary jurisdiction.There is no “WE”.And there is but “otherness” in it²s place.Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 08:14 PMFrustated D,
“So don’t hold you breath as long they are in charge the people of NI will not have a proper democracy”
Naive.
Ni is not Democratic in essence.
you’ve lost that battle.Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 08:21 PMby hbe way,whos holding their breath?
Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 08:22 PMDave [and I’d guess ‘guest’]
Rhetoric is fine but you ignore the question of how do you get to that constitutional change?
Waiting for a demographic flip, as Sinn Féin appear to be promoting, is not just unrealistic, it doesn’t actually address the problem.
There is a ‘we’ within this administration’s sphere of influence - despite the psychotic ramblings of some.
A process of civilisation is required here.
That process would benefit from promoting an enhanced democratic administration in Northern Ireland.
But keeping the current status quo actually retards that process.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 08:37 PMPete,
Nicely put.
i’ll be just as terse.
“But keeping the current status quo actually retards that process”
And we wouldn’t want to retard the process for what reason?
“A process of civilisation is required here”
We’ve had that.The dup declared STAA has the end of it.
“There is a ‘we’ within this administration’s sphere of influence - despite the psychotic ramblings of some”
oh no there isn’t!!
dup agreed so in STAA.Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 08:46 PMPete,
“Rhetoric is fine but you ignore the question of how do you get to that constitutional change?”“
And if “we” never get to it?
What you do not seem to understand is that the BA/STAA may not be about the road to Independent Ireland but more about neutering unionists.Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 09:12 PMguest
“What you do not seem to understand is that the BA/STAA may not be about the road to Independent Ireland but more about neutering unionists.”
Well that’s a poverty of ambition right there.
Understandable, though, given the absence of any other road.
As for
“A process of civilisation is required here”
We’ve had that.The dup declared STAA has the end of it.
“There is a ‘we’ within this administration’s sphere of influence - despite the psychotic ramblings of some”
oh no there isn’t!!
dup agreed so in STAA.You seem to have missed the [several] point[s].
Keeping the current status quo actually retards the process [of civilisation].
If you’d address the issues raised we might be able to have a conversation on the topic.
Merely blaming the DUP for the sectarian position that the Sinn Féin leadership are now maintaining is, not just weak, it’s disingenuous.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 09:24 PMPete,
It is a
fascinating word “disingenuous”.First thing that came to my mind was an anti-engineer then a lazy feck.
Anyway.
“Well that’s a poverty of ambition right there”
How many times has Krakov won when his only tactic was playing for stalemate?
Most games of his lfe.
“Understandable, though, given the absence of any other road”
so dig up your enemies road.See above.
“Keeping the current status quo actually retards the process [of civilisation].”
And civilization is?
British rule, I presume.
“If you’d address the issues raised we might be able to have a conversation on the topic”
I did.
“Merely blaming the DUP for the sectarian position that the Sinn Féin leadership are now maintaining is, not just weak, it’s disingenuous.”
great word;
I don’t blame them at all.They did the right thing But had to be made do hte right thing.I simply cited them as the voice of unionism.Do you prefer UUP 98?Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 09:34 PMPete,
1. I don’t accept that the status quo necessarily or even actually retards the process of reaching enhanced democratic administration. It’s a feature of NI life that we are better at criticism than prescription. Unfortunately perhaps, there is no system which can suddenly create your nirvana. Instead, we are in for a long haul. One key question is: what’s the alternative?2.Arend Lijphart, the theoretician of this form of powersharing would concede that it is not ideally democratic or technically effective.
3. One alternative is straightforward majority rule but with added protocols for cooperation and HR protection. Any takers?
4. Another is an AV (alternative vote) Assembly mooted by our own Wilford and Wilson which compels a second choice vote, hopefully to strengthen the centre. It tends to collapse and is not favoured by most experts.
5. A variant of today’s system is the informal powersharing of 1973. With today’s inclusive participation, this might become the voluntary coalition of dreams, with a constitutional requirement for cross community government, a, say, 70% weighted majority for key decisions, an Assembly shorn of designations, perhaps giving Alliance and other minorities leverage to break deadlocks. In practice, would it be so very different from what we’ve got? And what would make it happen, other than a transformation in voting and party behaviour?
6. My further point I have argued before turns Murphy’s on its head.The system with all its checks and balances, watchdogs and supervisors, allows little room for sectarian victories except by blocking. That’s why blocking plus contests outside the Executive sphere still dominate what passes for politics.
7. There are signs - inconclusive I admit - of better cooperation ( post- Massareene, post- McDaid after a stumble and now with the UDA/UVF disarmament). The pressures of recession , so far partly deferred will require more effective government through painsharing, some unity in adversity and planning for a better tomorrow. Most political systems turn gratefully to thinking about better tomorrows, if they’re shown how to do it. This is a fruitful line to develop.
8. The clincher is that if you look at the big picture, none of the main parties have any interest whatever in bringing the whole thing down. What they need is constructive pressure and specific advice to do better. In Churchill’s eloquent phrase, “we keep buggering on” and stop searching for idealised systems that will never happen.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 09:42 PMBrian
I’d argue that your point 8 - “What they need is constructive pressure and specific advice to do better.” - identifies why settling for the status quo retards the civilisation process.
Your point 1
1. I don’t accept that the status quo necessarily or even actually retards the process of reaching enhanced democratic administration. It’s a feature of NI life that we are better at criticism than prescription. Unfortunately perhaps, there is no system which can suddenly create your nirvana. Instead, we are in for a long haul. One key question is: what’s the alternative?
The longer we stay where we are..
We are in it for the long haul.
Sinn Féin’s stated position is no change other than a paradigm shift.
What’s needed is a more gradual process.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 09:51 PMBrian,
1)what process?I agree.
2)Never trust the dutch.
3) No
4)Not favoured by anyone;
5) What we’ve got concentrated;
6) Vague
7) They started at 0.maybe have gone to 0.000001
8) Yep,lets keep on going.Ni can never be democratic.Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 09:53 PM“I’m guessing you haven’t access to the full article…”
That guess is a good one, but “[and I’d guess ‘guest’]” isn’t.
“...but you mis-characterise Partick Murphy’s argument.”
On the contrary, I described it accurately. He argues that quangos and courts now guarantee that ministers will not make discretionary judgements that favour one nation over the other. He is wrong. Rights-based legislation does not operate as an alternative to government and does not cover discretionary judgements that a minister will make, for example, in relation to the profoundly important - and politically contentious - matter of culture. Unless Patrick Murphy can show that a unionist minister for Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure will not act to frustrate the promotion of Irish culture (and this might be a tad difficult with Gregory Campbell), then his argument that the nation to which a minister belongs is rendered irrelevant by quangos and courts is badly mistaken. There remain two separate nations and both of them are seeking control of the state as the means by which they “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” The promotion of a Rule Britannia culture may suit the British nation, but it doesn’t suit the Irish nation. While the competitive zero-sum dynamics of both nations are circumscribed by the present arrangements, they are not eliminated by them. Therefore, it remains of importance which nation is controlling the state. Pretending that it doesn’t matter if unionist rule is restored at Stormont because of those quangos and courts assumes that unionists would be equally well disposed toward the promotion of Irish culture as they are toward the promotion of British culture. Anyone who beleives that has been chewing too many hallucinogenic peyote roots.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 10:04 PM“I’m guessing you haven’t access to the full article…”
That guess is a good one, but “[and I’d guess ‘guest’]” isn’t
” I didn’t even respond Dave,not that i don’t like you!!but we are different;lets say.
by the way Pete,cant you see the IPS?Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 10:09 PMAt the risk of taking this conversation even further off track..
Dave, don’t you recognise the role of the Irish Constitution?
Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 10:32 PMPerhaps it’s time for an update to the mandatory coalition. The government could be made up of:
i) the largest nationalist and ii) the largest unionist parties with iii) everyone else in opposition, iv) so long as nationalist and unionist parties are the largest two parties.
V) In the event that one of the two largest parties is not a constitutionally nationalist/unionist party (ie is the greens, Alliance etc) then Northern Ireland drops the mandatory coalition.
A more realistic, appropriate and fair solution?Thoughts please..
Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 10:36 PMnomad,
“i) the largest nationalist and ii) the largest unionist parties with iii) everyone else in opposition, iv) so long as nationalist and unionist parties are the largest two parties”
And everyone else would be?Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 10:40 PMI considered posting to correct but hoped it was obvious. I mean the one single largest nationalist party (currently SF) and the single largest unionist party (currently DUP).
I’ll let you work the rest out for yourself- everyone else would be the opposition.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 10:45 PMNomad,
not a bad idea in prinicipal.
it is obvious.
was just hoping you were not an alliance freak.
its pretty much what we have.But I dont believe ni is capable of opposition when those in power are already in opposition to the consitutional arrangements.Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 10:54 PMGuest,
I don’t believe it is obvious or the same as what we have right now. Obviously any mandatory coalition is a similar premise but with a huge opportunity for the parties to alter in policies and votes. It also solves the ‘no opposition’ problem pretty neatly.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 10:59 PMok.
First of all,whats the “no opposition problem”
I thought the beauty of my belgian compratiot d’hondt solved all that nonsense.
secondly,the problem with government agreeing (sf and dup) would be less bizarre and certainly less difficult than opposition agreeing(TUV,UUP and thier CONs,Sdlp,and alliance ) means the opposition would create in itself an opposition and go all unionist on us normal people.Think it through???Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 11:10 PM“I thought the beauty of my belgian compratiot d’hondt solved all that nonsense”-meself.
That does sound strange.Not his beauty,ugly for all I know.but you know what i meanPosted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 11:18 PMI have no idea what you mean.. No opposition is generally regarded a problem, even by those in government, although more often by those outside. And an ‘opposition within the opposition’ is a perfectly normal state of affairs for any form of democracy- competition of ideas and all that. And I haven’t seen a great deal of evidence that SF and DUP are agreeing on policy issues, but perhaps the increased threat by opposing parties might be more persuasive..
So no.. I don’t know what you mean.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2009 @ 11:25 PM
