Is Stormont doing a Donald Trump? The question arises because there appear to be interesting similarities between the styles of governance in the two administrations.
Since Mr Trump is not exactly an able administrator, he has taken to election-type rallies and gesture politics to retain his core support. In the absence of effective government, the president is railing against the establishment, three months after he was elected.
Stormont is pursuing a similar path. In the past ten years, it has relied heavily on gesture politics to fill the gap left by an inability to formulate and deliver a coherent programme for government. Nine months after the executive was elected, Sinn Féin and the DUP are once again rallying core support against each other's role in an establishment, which they created in their own political interests.
Like Trump, Stormont's electioneering will continue after the election. Next week's poll is merely a doorway to post-election posturing as a substitute for government.
You might argue that aTrump-Stormont comparison of governance styles is a bit stretched. However, both administrations have used three common methods of governance: manipulation of the facts, attacking or ignoring the media and using fear as a political rallying cry. All of these take precedence over social and economic policy, in what might be called distraction politics.
Stormont's five main parties have played some role in manipulating information. For example, in the RHI scandal, the DUP offered "alternative facts" (copyright D Trump) about how the heating scheme became so lavishly funded.
The SDLP and UUP provided an alternative history of why they failed to notice the scandal and SF offered an alternative truth. It claimed that RHI was the straw which broke the camel's back, even though it had earlier insisted that the camel carry more straw by lobbying to keep the scheme open. Apart from the Green Party, few in Stormont queried the scheme until it was exposed in the media.
RHI ran for so long without opposition because Stormont's culture of governance is based on each side allowing the other to do its own thing, even to the extent of burning public money. Sinn Féin conveniently ignored RHI until internal party pressure forced it to act.
Fear as a political weapon has been most significantly used by the DUP, which mentioned Sinn Féin 32 times and Gerry Adams 12 times during its manifesto launch. One DUP poster asks: "If the Adams Plan works, what next?" (Some might answer that since none of SF's plans for a united Ireland have worked so far, the party is also wondering "What next?")
At the launch, Arlene Foster ignored the media. Maybe, like Trump, the DUP believes that journalists are dishonest. (Although, in fairness, Arlene's flu was more Fawlty Towers than Trump Tower. Her behaviour was reminiscent of the scene in the classic comedy when Basil pretended his wife had lost her voice so he could avoid an embarrassing situation.)
Like Trump, SF is now claiming credit for tackling the failure of government. The party has been less than pleased with this column's criticism of Stormont in recent years. In a wonderful irony, it now apparently shares those views. (Well, that's one way of making party policy.)
Sinn Féin says it deserves credit for walking away from Stormont, but it has also walked away from the social and economic mess which is Stormont's legacy. The rest of us must live with declining public services and a directionless economy.
So instead of offering us governance, the two main parties are heading for prolonged electioneering. Having burned much of its support base in RHI, the DUP has reverted to the primitive Paisleyism on which the party was founded. Sinn éinF has reverted to playing the role of victim. (Like Trump, it has been blessed with incompetent opponents.)
For both, it is a remarkably clever strategy. It allows those who have been in government for ten years to distance themselves from that government's failure.
Of course, Stormont merely reflects Mr Trump's style of governance, not his actual policies. For example, it does not believe in deporting immigrants (although SF used to campaign for Brits out) and it does not support building new walls (we have so many already, we could sell them ready-made to America.)
If you support any of the five main parties at Stormont, you will argue that it is a gross exaggeration to suggest that any or all of them are copying Donald Trump's governance style.You have a point. Since Stormont had a ten-year start on him, it is more likely that Trump is doing a Stormont.
