Opinion

Deirdre Heenan: Mandatory coalition at Stormont is no longer fit for purpose - we need a government that will deliver

Addressing serious questions around the system of mandatory coalition at Stormont is not about undermining the fundamental spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, but about finding a better way to govern. Picture by Mal McCann
Addressing serious questions around the system of mandatory coalition at Stormont is not about undermining the fundamental spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, but about finding a better way to govern. Picture by Mal McCann Addressing serious questions around the system of mandatory coalition at Stormont is not about undermining the fundamental spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, but about finding a better way to govern. Picture by Mal McCann

THE campaigning is over, the votes have been counted, the people have spoken, yet predictably we find ourselves in another impasse.

Since 1998 a pattern has emerged of a Stormont crisis, intensive multi-party talks, deadlines, false dawns and eventually an agreed new plan. 'Blueprints' for the future have included the St Andrews Agreement in 2006, the Stormont House Agreement of 2014, Fresh Start in 2015 and most recently in 2020, New Decade New Approach.

As we face into another period of uncertainty and instability, this may be the opportunity to move beyond tinkering at the margins and acknowledge that the current system of mandatory coalition is not fit for purpose.

Almost 25 years on from the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, decades of peace, but also of fragile, divisive government, have led to both praise for and criticism of the historic peace accord.

On the one hand it is credited with ending the seemingly intractable conflict in Northern Ireland and its impact on power sharing is irrefutable. Notwithstanding these significant achievements, detractors suggest that the Agreement has reinforced and embedded sectarian political divisions and runs counter to promoting liberal politics.

At its core is the acceptance and legitimatisation of the existence of two irreconcilable ethno-national communities - unionist and nationalist. These are viewed as fixed, autonomous and equally valid.

But this is self-evidently not true. The rise of the non-aligned 'others', most notably the Alliance party, means that rather than two intractable communities, we now have three minorities.

Given the propensity for gridlock and collapse, coupled with an appalling lack of delivery in key public policy issues such as health and education there is increasing public frustration with this volatile system of governance.

The most recent collapse of the powersharing Executive in February has nudged the debate on mandatory coalition from the margins to the mainstream.

Understandably, within nationalist quarters there is concern that any changes might undermine and unravel the peace agreement. Michelle O'Neill has repeatedly stated that her party is not interested in any renegotiation of the Good Friday Agreement and has ruled out changes. Colum Eastwood has also refused to be drawn on the need for systemic reform.

Vehement opposition to the Good Friday Agreement resurfaced during the toxic Brexit and Protocol debates. The TUV and DUP antipathy towards it and the recklessness of the British government explains the lack of appetite for a reassessment.

However, the Agreement was not written in stone, but rather should be viewed as a living, breathing document, subject to regular review and amendment.

The stop-start nature of devolution in the north has meant that the focus has been on maintaining rather than enhancing the structures. Consequently, review and reform, slipped down the political agenda.

Contrary to popular opinion, substantial institutional change is, and has already been possible without renegotiating the Good Friday Agreement. For example, the reduction of the Assembly from 108 to 90 MLAs, the establishment of a new executive department and the creation of provisions for an official opposition.

Whilst the principles and values underpinning the Good Friday Agreement such as power sharing, constitutional consent, mutual respect are immutable, how they are realised must be open to debate.

Is there a viable alternative? Could a voluntary coalition be the solution to creating an effective government? It seems likely that a straightforward voluntary coalition would be rejected on the grounds that it could result in one community being excluded from power. Some type of qualified voluntary coalition with minimum cross community requirements could represent an acceptable replacement.

This sort of arrangement could facilitate the emergence of a more cohesive coalition, with an increased emphasis on collective responsibility. Parties could choose to opt out of government to sit in opposition, providing much needed accountability and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny.

The past two decades have been a switchback ride of broken promises, collapse, sectarian stand-offs, leaving despairing voters - according to every recent poll - deeply unimpressed and disillusioned. The mandatory coalition forces unwilling partners into government, partners who neither trust nor respect each other and cannot agree on a shared vision.

Mandatory coalition limps along because ultimately, it seems as good as it gets: a choice between bad government or no government. Is a coalition of the willing not worth serious consideration? Addressing these questions is not about undermining or altering the fundamental spirit, values or principles of the Good Friday Agreement, but rather ensuring that they are realised.

With political will, amendments and change are possible. Getting Stormont back up and running is simply not good enough. We desperately need a government that will take on the big policy challenges and deliver.