Opinion

Newton Emerson: Biased Stormont system needs to be tackled

Newton Emerson

Newton Emerson

Newton Emerson writes a twice-weekly column for The Irish News and is a regular commentator on current affairs on radio and television.

The democratic deficit is clear: supporters of Alliance, the Greens and other non-aligned parties have a lesser vote than unionists and nationalists. Pictured is Alliance leader Naomi Long. Photo: Mal McCann.
The democratic deficit is clear: supporters of Alliance, the Greens and other non-aligned parties have a lesser vote than unionists and nationalists. Pictured is Alliance leader Naomi Long. Photo: Mal McCann. The democratic deficit is clear: supporters of Alliance, the Greens and other non-aligned parties have a lesser vote than unionists and nationalists. Pictured is Alliance leader Naomi Long. Photo: Mal McCann.

To this day there are unionists who sincerely believe the ‘One Man, One Vote’ slogan of the civil rights movement was a contrived and misleading grievance.

Only council elections were restricted to ratepayers and this affected Protestants as much as Catholics, so where was the discrimination?

There are parallels with the gathering argument over Stormont’s unequal franchise. Many people will be in denial about the problem, yet the democratic deficit is clear: supporters of Alliance, the Greens and other non-aligned parties have a lesser vote than unionists and nationalists.

This is not about the offices of first and deputy first minister, although that is the issue bringing matters to a head. It seems perverse Alliance could become the second largest party and still not nominate the deputy first minister, should ‘other’ not be the second largest designation. However, these rules do apply to everyone, ungainly though they may be.

The problem is the numerous other rules showing preferment to unionists and nationalists: petitions of concern in the assembly; a veto in the executive; the definition of ‘cross-community vote’; the requirement to use such votes for significant decisions, including any changes to Stormont’s rules - a Catch 22 exclusion for the ‘other’ designation.

The law enacting the Good Friday Agreement is unambiguous that ‘other’ is a full designation, not a ‘non-designation’ as it is sometimes described. There is no attempt to define ‘other’ as a lesser category than unionist or nationalist - just repeated instances throughout the legislation of blatantly treating it as a lesser category. This was dubious enough when the law was passed in 1998, with ‘others’ polling at under 10 per cent. Their support has now doubled, while more rules have been added downgrading them to second-class. The St Andrews agreement created further unionist and nationalist vetoes, as did the 2010 deal to devolve policing and justice.

One justification occasionally heard for treating ‘others’ differently is that most supporters of non-aligned parties are also unionists or nationalists. They have simply chosen not to make that their priority at the ballot box.

This is a circular argument: why should their priorities not have equal democratic effect? It is like telling a nationalist in Derry in 1968 that they cannot vote for the council because they have simply chosen not to buy a house.

The unspoken justifications for treating ‘others’ differently is that they are not a true identity group, or the people who required a peace process in the first place, nor will they take to the streets over Stormont rules.

Alliance is openly a party for unionists and nationalists, with little tradition of protest, to put it mildly. Yet there is evidence of a radical centre developing in Northern Ireland politics and of intense frustration with unionist and nationalist vetoes, leading to the sort of solidarity that can build a new identity. Electoral competition between Alliance and the Greens is driving this forward.

But where can it go, given the Catch-22 on Stormont reform?

Although there is a broad acceptance the petition of concern needs to change, unionists and nationalists will not agree to abolish it or adopt a weighted majority, and the British and Irish governments will not move without their consent. Years have been spent talking fruitlessly over this.

A legal challenge to designation on rights and equality grounds would be intriguing but again would take years and be easily stymied.

There are procedural opportunities for subversion. In 2001, Alliance redesignated itself as unionist to prevent a collapse of devolution. The Women’s Coalition had a general policy of redesignation as required. This ‘crossing the floor’ manoeuvre so enraged the DUP it had the rules tightened at St Andrews so designations have to be declared upon election and cannot be changed mid-term.

However, it is individual MLAs that designate, not parties - a party merely acquires the designation of a majority of its members. MLAs can change designation mid-term if they leave their party or move to another.

Imagine Alliance designating half its MLAs as unionist and half as nationalist, ‘expelling’ one or two as key votes required. Or the Greens and Alliance temporarily swapping members to permit redesignation.

These would be risky moves, potentially unpopular with supporters, or they could be a triumph if presented as an agreed centrist strategy to reform a biased system.

There is no question the system is biased against a defined group of voters. This will have to be dealt with eventually. The lesson of history is to act sooner rather than later.