Constitutional visions from the grassroots

Jennifer Todd is Emeritus (Full) Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, UCD

Constitutional change to a united Ireland is high stakes– it would change almost every aspect of life for almost everyone on the island. Even discussion of it provokes anger among unionists and avoidance amongst others. Meanwhile, there are growing gaps in understanding and expectation between people in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland – if these aren’t addressed, democratically achieved unity will disappoint even those who vote for it.

Is it possible to think about how a better society and politics could be made on the island? How union or unity could provide more opportunities for ordinary people? Joanne McEvoy, Shelley Deane and I thought that deliberation – in cross-border cross-local deliberative cafés – could allow all of the creative potential of everyday relations to scale up and out to creative political discussion.

Over the past year, we organised four day-long cross-border and cross-community deliberative cafés among rural women from MidUlster, Longford, Mayo and Monaghan, and a fifth shorter evening café. Cross-border and cross-community, because its necessary to start realistic thinking that includes all. Women because they have much in common in everyday life, even though they differ politically. MidUlster because I grew up there, and because rural places often lose out to Belfast, or sometimes to Derry.

We involved the local councils, so that the discussion could feed back into politics. Many thanks to Mid Ulster Council for help.

We were radically inclusive and participatory. The women themselves defined the issues at stake. In the morning, they worked to define shared problems and visions. They talked about their alienation from politics, and the need for participation; about the extent of gender based violence, and the dysfunctionality of health and other service provision both sides of the border; about the need for joined up policies that worked at local level. After lunch, with help from policy experts, they explored how far existing policies and politics resolved the problems or made them worse. In the late afternoon they used the criteria they themselves had agreed – the shared problems, visions and policy imperatives – to assess different types of constitutional change, whether within the Union or to a new united Ireland.

We discovered:

• There are no shortcuts on such an important and complex issue. One day of deliberation is the minimum, and some of our participants kept coming back for more. The participants have to define their own shared problems, North and South, unionist, nationalist and neither, before they can sensibly discuss how to overcome them. And the discussion has to be cross-border.

• The discussion moved well beyond unionism, nationalism and middle-ground-ism. The women didn’t change their intuitive preferences for union or unity, or their identity as nationalist, unionist or neither. But these didn’t matter so much, they no longer dominated discussion. Instead discussion was about making a better society and a politics where ordinary people could have a real say in policy. Union and unity were measured against this standard. If this were generalised, it would allow constructive discussion about the constitutional future.

• The women still didn’t agree. Some continued to prefer Northern Ireland within the Union, and some to prefer a united Ireland. But the sort of Union and the sort of united Ireland changed. Almost everyone agreed that there was a need to beef up North-South institutions and Shared Island cooperation on key issues like gender based violence, environment and health; this would already make the Union more acceptable to nationalists. Those who wanted a united Ireland didn’t want Dublin rule: discussion converged around the need for asymmetric policies which allowed decentralisation of power and decision-making on issues where local input is central (eg anti-social activity) and universal norms on other issues (eg rights and equality). This hybrid united Ireland would be open to local participation and input, less daunting even to those in the North who didn’t want it. If these perspectives were generalised, the discussions would generate less fear, less insecurity.

• Only a few changed their minds about unity. One woman from Mid-Ulster turned away from unity because she thought that Southerners didn’t understand the North. But for her, as for almost all the others, the cafés started an ongoing process of reflection, discussion and appetite for more participation.

Unionist politicians take note! This deliberation is as likely to lead to support for the Union as for a united Ireland. It opens the constitutional issue to evidence, thought, discussion. Whatever the answers, it makes discussion safer and it makes for a better democracy. It should be rolled out to more groups – youth, farmers, fathers, workers – and across the whole island.