When there is no blind alley to go down, Northern Ireland always manages to construct one.

If Portadown District LOL members were to march down the Garvaghy Road in the current circumstances, what would it achieve for Northern Ireland and community relations? Hard to come up with much.

Reckless leadership suffering from an excess of tradition and lining up to orchestrate a contentious situation as an issue of equal rights and respect for culture should be more honest and admit that it is a lingering and localised throw-back to communal resentment and desire to have its own way, regardless of the fallout.

This type of unrestrained and undisciplined rhetoric, more comfortable with problems than solutions, is serving to widen the gap between political unionism and civic unionism.

Laying out a defined outcome prior to engaging in mediation, if it does develop, merely establishes a zero sum ‘fait accompli’ which implies acceptance by those on the other side of the argument; equally rigid in their provocative entrenchment, yet not provided for in strategic thinking present within Portadown LOL or its advisers.

Any attempt to appear moderate presents as hollow and is unlikely to win endorsement.

When there is no blind alley to go down, Northern Ireland politicians can be relied upon to construct one.

Prominent individuals at the table seem to miss the irony that not so long ago they were associating themselves with protests and illegal actions in Scarva because they did not like the views of the marchers on route to Newry.

In a situation where proxy politics are clearly in play they voice outlandish claims that the whole unionist and loyalist grassroots community thinks as one on the issue. This is patently not the case and possibly a minority view.

Large numbers do not wish to go back to tractors blocking airports, wasteful deployment of police human and financial resources and sectarian turbulence. This is not attuned to daily priorities focused on housing, jobs, the cost of living and health delivery.

It cannot be dismissed that the Parades Commission contributed to the emerging muddle. There is evidence from the recent court case that the members got things wrong and skew any debate by clinging on.

It would be more helpful in the circumstances to clear their desks and not allow personal vanity to cloud judgement. Whatever the internal reasons which produced the flawed decision-making, they are damaged goods. It happened on their watch.

It is hard to see how any review can reach any other conclusion.

The appointment of new individuals would clear the way for a fresh approach to decision-making and terms of reference in regard to not merely the management of contentious parades but establishing a cultural accord for the conduct and organisation of parades and protests which drain the public purse and restrict movement in the public square.

It needs to happen before there is any negative ripple and leverage effect on planned events in the calendar in other places.

This need not be a repressive process but rather one that establishes ground rules and cultural competences which minimise political, binary or communal undercurrents and maximise positive celebration and pluralist cultural expression.

This is a discussion that could begin now to establish a level playing field around costs of policing all parades, cultural expression, concerts, festivals, sporting events and protests, behaviour, health, safety and environmental issues at bonfires, levels of disruption, location, timing and length of events, the positive and negative impact on local economies.

Evidence-based criteria, beyond cult-like tendencies and threats of violence or disruption, objection and opposition will better inform decision-making. Currently, it is the former which seems the biggest influence on decision-making.

In a truly progressive and pluralist community, where offence-taking and sensitivities are not so delicate, such may prove unnecessary but we are not yet in that place; rather do anachronistic tribal territoriality and inherited allegiances, unchallenged by weak political leadership, continue to impinge on common interests.

We therefore need legislation informed by rational cultural competences and rights of expression allied to civic responsibility.

It might lead us into a future where an integrated and cross-disciplinary approach to genuine cultural heritage can define its value to society and embed the principle of every person’s access to the cultural heritage of choice whilst respecting the rights and freedom of others.

Currently, we are having to legislate for the absence of such.

Terry Wright

Terry Wright is a former member of the UUP who, in addition to inter- and intra-community activities works independently to promote Civic Unionism.