Opinion

Alex Kane: Political parties must make room for personal conscience

Alex Kane

Alex Kane

Alex Kane is an Irish News columnist and political commentator and a former director of communications for the Ulster Unionist Party.

Alex Kane
Alex Kane Alex Kane

As someone who spent a number of years working in the Ulster Unionist Party (although I was only in the press office from mid-2008 until January 2010) I can understand the need for internal discipline.

Mixed messages and mavericks can do huge damage to a party, particularly when it leads to elected representatives expressing their differences on the airwaves or in newspaper interviews. That's why there's a whip's office and a press office. That's why there are rules about who can represent the party in interviews; who speaks for the party on specific issues; and making sure that they are well enough briefed to avoid car-crash interviews.

Sinn Féin and the DUP are particularly good at keeping their members under a very tight rein: so good, in fact, that a very senior member of the Conservative Party told me quite recently that he was 'envious of their machines.'

That's why I was genuinely surprised to hear that the DUP bothered with £100 to £1000 fines for members defying the whip. Given the power of their press office, the authority wielded by some of their key backroom staff and the ability of their core leadership to make and break careers, I wouldn't have thought it was necessary to have another level of punishment available. Mind you, the fact that they do and the fact that some of their members have mentioned it to journalists is quite interesting. Maybe there is a growing problem with internal dissent?

It wouldn't be surprising if there were problems. Last year's snap election saw 10 DUP MLAs lose their jobs four years earlier than they had expected. Power has passed from Belfast to Westminster. The last talks process ended in a dog's dinner collapse, when it looked as though the leadership was forced to back out of a deal because the grassroots hadn't been kept informed on a potential Irish Language Act--even though it was clearly in the mix for months. The overall unionist majority in the assembly was lost under the DUP's watch. And, of course, the daily revelations from RHI have been extraordinarily embarrassing and damaging. The fact that the DUP has managed to keep as tight a lid on problems as it has, is an indication of just how good they are at controlling the machine.

As yet the DUP hasn't had a public debate about a 'conscience clause' when it comes to issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. I'm not even sure they have had a private debate about it; although, not having ruled out the use of a petition-of-concern if the assembly was rebooted (even though they would require signatures from Jim Allister and at least one UUP MLA), the evidence would suggest that their MLAs would not be allowed to opt out from official policy.

Sinn Féin has made it very clear that, in the words of Martina Anderson during last Saturday's debate on abortion reform, "There is absolutely no space for a conscience clause--this is a cop out when it comes to standing up for the rights of women." In a statement after the ard fheis, the party said: "As legislators Sinn Féin public representatives have a responsibility to legislate for all in society rather than in line with their own personal views. So while everyone has their own view the ard fheis has democratically and overwhelmingly set party policy and the party's elected representatives have a responsibility to respect that policy and vote for it."

I can understand why Sinn Féin has adopted this approach, yet it still worries me. It's what I regard as Sir Joseph Porter (from HMS Pinafore) territory:

"I always voted at my party's call,

And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.

I thought so little, they rewarded me,

By making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!"

There are some issues which go above and beyond mere party policy: some issues on which it is very difficult to just shrug your shoulders and agree to disagree with your party colleagues. And on those sorts of issues it is not unusual for parties to recognise and accommodate a 'conscience clause.' Those issues would normally be about very specific ethical/religious matters; matters which, for some public representatives, take priority over their membership of the party. Is it fair, for the sake of party unity, that they should be told to leave their conscience at the door and act solely in the interests of the party's electoral needs (which is what it actually comes down to)? How much respect should we have for an elected representative who is prepared to do that?

I have written in previous columns that I support abortion law reform and same-sex-marriage. That said, I recognise that many people do not. I'm wary of any political party that insists that every member sings from the same sheet. I'm particularly wary of those parties which insist--and in Sinn Féin's case there is no other word to use--that, 'There is absolutely no space for a conscience clause.' Conscience is the bedrock of our individual identity. There must always be space for it. Otherwise, we might just as well elect pre-programmed robots to govern us.