Alex Kane puts the case for postponment of elections having thus far preserved what has been good about the Belfast Agreement, and suggests the democratic deficit consists of those who are not yet prepared to work the Agreement in full. It’s an interesting argument perhaps mostly because it has rarely been publicly made over the last six months or so.
By Alex. Kane
The reason why so many unionists have lost faith in the Belfast Agreement is because it hasn�t led to what they had hoped for most, the end of terrorism and the culture of paramilitarism. Now, I suspect that even the most optimistic of them voted yes in 1998, knowing that it could take a while for the terrorist structures to dismantle and for old habits to die. Yet, far from seeing changes trundle along, they are witnessing the growth of a society in which paramilitaries are creating an �us-and-them� patchwork of ghettoes across Northern Ireland.
The fact of the matter is that the paramilitary/decommissioning issue is the unfinished business of the Agreement and of the first Assembly. It must not be allowed to fester on and contaminate the business of the next Assembly. And that is why the issue has to be resolved before the next election.
Those who condemned the postponement of the election claimed that it was part of a �Save Dave� campaign. It was nothing of the sort. If post-1972 history points to anything, it is to the brutal truth that no British or Irish government gives a damn about helping, let alone saving, any unionist leader. The election was postponed to save the process and the Agreement: as Bertie Ahern put it on Tuesday, �We want to have the prospect that the election would give us an executive, and we want to see that they will implement a programme for government that will give stability in NI and not have the stop-start crises, mini crises and major crises that we have continued to have.�
Denying the electorate the opportunity, yet again, to vote in an Assembly election, is to upend the principles and purposes of democracy. But isn�t the whole point of the election to elect a government? If the election cannot deliver that result, then why have the election.
Holding an election before SF/IRA have acknowledged their democratic debt of honour is simply to let them off the hook. Indeed, if Sinn Fein emerges as the largest nationalist party it will interpret the result as a fresh mandate for intransigence and foot-dragging. Does anyone actually believe that it would be easier to deal with SF in those circumstances, than it has been in the present ones?
So why do the other parties want an election so badly? Well, the SDLP fears that a resolution of the decommissioning issue before the election would act as an enormous electoral boost to SF. The DUP, on the other hand, believes that a pre-election deal means that it will be deprived of its best ever chance of eclipsing the UUP. Trimble�s dissidents want an election in which the party polls badly, followed by the sound of him falling on his sword.
Alliance and the Women�s Coalition dread a pre-election deal because they know that it robs them of the chance to provide the wind and waffle of a non-existent middle ground. The PUP don�t really care about the date, because they only expect to return their two sitting members. And as for Sinn Fein, it believes that an election in the absence of a deal allows it to widen its mandate by seeking votes on the back of the hint that supporting it is the best way of coaxing the IRA to accept democracy. If the deal is done first, then what happens to SF�s cutting edge over the SDLP?
The line between the defence of democratic principle and party political self-interest is a pretty fine one, and, in the case of Assembly elections, it is shrouded in a smog of hypocrisy and greasy pole gymnastics. Is postponing an election any worse than holding one for an Assembly that doesn�t sit? Isn�t continuing to negotiate a deal now, better than opting for an electoral outcome in which the key players probably won�t talk at all? Put bluntly; what makes the �hold the election now� parties think that they can deliver a post- election deal when they have singularly failed to resolve the problem since 1998? Do the deal, and then seek the verdict of the ballot box.
First published in the Newsletter on Saturday 20th September
Mick is founding editor of Slugger. He has written papers on the impacts of the Internet on politics and the wider media and is a regular guest and speaking events across Ireland, the UK and Europe. Twitter: @MickFealty
Discover more from Slugger O'Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
