Opinion

Nationalists need to be concerned about the SDLP's opposition decision

Colum Eastwood's explanation for the SDLP's decision relied on meaningless buzz phrases about "constructive opposition"
Colum Eastwood's explanation for the SDLP's decision relied on meaningless buzz phrases about "constructive opposition" Colum Eastwood's explanation for the SDLP's decision relied on meaningless buzz phrases about "constructive opposition"

IN the main political parties exist to achieve political power.

Some political parties pursue political power as an end in and of itself. Others pursue power to effect change and for some parties the achievement of power provides an opportunity to help change the lives of people who are powerless, poor or live on the margins of life.

Rarely do parties unilaterally and willingly give up power without a struggle.

So the events at the north's assembly last week are nothing but bizarre when considered in that setting.

We witnessed the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP and the Alliance Party walk away from positions of power and influence on the north's executive, which had been generously awarded to them in a mandate by the electorate a few weeks ago.

A mandate which the parties re-interpreted overnight and which spectacularly contradicted their manifestos.

None of the parties who are refusing to join the executive fought the election campaign on that basis.

Had they told the electorate that if elected they would not join the executive and use their influence to improve the quality of people's lives then their poor showing might well have been worse.

I can understand why the Ulster Unionists and the Alliance Party would style their actions as they do - `forming an official opposition'.

Their unionist view of the world leads them in that direction presenting the north as a normal parliamentary democracy, with normal democratic structures - Westminster-style of course. To them the north is a `region' of the UK and therefore it is logical it should have an `official opposition'.

But it is incredible that the SDLP would lend itself to that charade, to such a distorted view of the northern state, to such a unionist position.

The north is not a democratic society but an artificial construct, historically based on a sectarian headcount.

But Stormont is no longer `a Protestant parliament for a Protestant people'. Its walls have been breached and all is changed. To hand back power out of pique or pride is a dereliction of duty.

The executive and the assembly function, however problematically, solely on the basis that they are part of an island-wide political system which, of course, unionism resists. Were this dimension absent Sinn Féin would not participate in the institutions, would not prop up an exclusively `internal' arrangement.

Nationalists need to be very concerned about the SDLP's decision not to join the executive.

It aids the unionist partitionist view; it undermines power sharing between unionists and nationalists, a fundamental principle of the GFA; it weakens the balance on the executive between nationalists and unionists and strengthens the hand of unionists and presents similar but unseen difficulties on the all-Ireland ministerial council.

I listened carefully to Colum Eastwood's explanation for the SDLP's decision. It was incoherent and contradictory and relied on meaningless buzz phrases about "constructive opposition".

But when he was asked should the d'Hondt system of electing the executive be changed he said `no' because it was designed to protect the power sharing administration. Which he and the SDLP were walking away from.

I expected the SDLP, after such a disastrous result, would have taken time to reflect on why its support had plummeted to such low levels. Instead it volunteers to marginalise its influence by removing itself from government thereby depriving its voters of representation.

In effect the SDLP are abandoning northern nationalists and leaving it to Sinn Féin to uphold their political, economic and cultural rights at a time when the DUP, flush with a good election, is tempted by the old presumptions.

Sinn Féin will, no doubt, respond to the hubris of first minister Arlene Foster and the DUP's Simon Hamilton, who have said there will be no Sinn Féin justice minister, no money for legacy inquests and no Irish Language Act.

Meanwhile, as second lieutenant on Mike Nesbitt's `official opposition' bench Colum Eastwood is reduced to huffing and puffing while the real work of advancing power-sharing in the north and all-Ireland politics and defending the rights of the working class in the face of austerity and cuts imposed by Tories in London and the north's executive falls on the shoulders of Sinn Féin.