Opinion

Patrick Murphy: Stormont's compulsory coalition is now a risk to public health

First Minister Paul Givan has described the Covid passport scheme as shambolic and divisive, which means he opposes the policies of the government he leads Picture: Hugh Russell
First Minister Paul Givan has described the Covid passport scheme as shambolic and divisive, which means he opposes the policies of the government he leads Picture: Hugh Russell First Minister Paul Givan has described the Covid passport scheme as shambolic and divisive, which means he opposes the policies of the government he leads Picture: Hugh Russell

Although compulsory coalition at Stormont was introduced in the expectation that it would create a better society, it is becoming increasingly clear that it now constitutes a risk to public health.

Many countries use voluntary coalition to form a united government, in which parties agree on implementing a range of policies. Stormont’s compulsory coalition, however, is based on bringing five parties together in a political forced marriage, despite significant policy differences between them.

Their current differences, for example, include the DUP’s opposition to SF’s draft budget and the two main parties’ vastly different views on abortion legislation. While these differences highlight the inherent weaknesses in power-sharing, the executive’s mixed messages on dealing with Covid shows the system can be dangerously dysfunctional in a pandemic.

SF supports the introduction of Covid passports for entry into large gatherings. While the DUP initially agreed to that as government policy, it now opposes the scheme. Normally, when coalition parties disagree, they resolve their differences privately and present a united front to the electorate.

Stormont is different. Any of the five executive parties can actively oppose government policy, knowing they will retain power. So while in the US, for example, the buck stops with the president, in Stormont the buck never stops.

SF defied government policy on Covid when organising Bobby Storey’s funeral and the DUP did it this week by voting against a policy which they helped to devise. First Minister Paul Givan has described the Covid passport scheme as shambolic and divisive, which means he opposes the policies of the government he leads.

Following Monday’s Stormont debate, (for “debate”, read talking shop) his party voted against passports. (Covid passports were introduced last month, so while MLAs were “debating” them, the public were already using them. How’s that for Stormont’s irrelevance?)

Although this could be portrayed in satirical terms, it has a more serious side which risks threatening the health service. Some DUP MLAs met with anti-passport protesters at Stormont, assuring them of their party’s support. This presumably means that the DUP advocates unrestricted access to large crowds, which are likely to include some who are unvaccinated.

This poses serious health risks. The unvaccinated represent the most serious threat to public health by spreading the virus and by placing an immense burden on an already over-stretched health service.

Party differences mean that the first and deputy first ministers cannot jointly deliver a shared message on Covid passports, which suggests that compulsory coalition can damage your health.

Of Stormont’s 90 MLAs, 82 are in government parties, which means that the assembly is not inconvenienced by having an opposition. (What has parliamentary democracy ever done for us?).

So parties in the same coalition try to justify this absence of an opposition by claiming to hold each other to account. For example, a SF-led health committee “holds to account” a health minister who agrees policy in the executive with, among others, four SF ministers.

This is a complex construction which allows every party in the executive to be in government and opposition at the same time. (Why not hold each other to account around the executive table and remove the need for committees?)

There is a significant minority in society which opposes governments’ anti-Covid measures. By their statements in Stormont and Westminster, the DUP has provided support to this group, sometimes by inference, but more often through undisguised contempt for government policy.

A system which allows a government party to work against government policy cannot be defended. Those who disagree with government policy should be in opposition, not in government.

With an expected tidal wave of Covid’s Omicron strain after Christmas, the executive’s mixed messages increase our risk of ill health, both directly through the disease and by preventing those with other serious conditions from accessing hospital beds.

It is time to end compulsory coalition. Many will argue that it served a purpose. It may well have, but it is not worth dying for.