Stormont is a failed political experiment

Posted by Jim on September 13, 2015

By Patrick Murphy (for Irish News)

Dear Sinn Fein,

Since the current Stormont is now more unpopular than the old one, many
might wonder why you are trying to preserve it. Apart from being, in
your own original terms, a partitionist parliament, it is now generally
recognised as a failed political experiment in its present form.

Since Peter Robinson last year described Stormont as unfit for purpose,
you (with the SDLP) are now its most vocal supporter.

Remember how you cheered when the old Stormont collapsed in 1972
following Bloody Sunday? (People arguing for democratising Stormont in
those days were seen as enemies of the war process.)

Forty three years later, many people, Protestant and Catholic, are
cheering the Ulster Unionists’ exit from Stormont government. Like
unionism in 1969, some see you as defending a discredited institution,
insisting that no one will force you out. You should not have to be
forced out. Maybe you should leave now and use this opportunity to build
a reformed Stormont.

The longer you stay, the more credibility you will lose. You will, of
course, disagree. So what are the arguments for and against propping up
Stormont?

One reason for its retention is that it gives you power. Does it?
Thirteen years ago Martin McGuinness abolished academic selection – a
good decision. A few weeks from now over 7,000 children will sit one or
both of two academic selection tests.

Only Sinn Fein has held the education portfolio in new Stormont. So
where is your power? What you have is not power, but limited negative
control to curtail the limited negative control of others. There are
many other examples of blocked progress: an Irish Language Act, the
re-development of Long Kesh and the Education and Skills Authority.

In one of the most shameful episodes in this state’s history, you were
unable to censure Nelson McCausland for his handling of the Red Sky
contract with the Housing Executive or to discipline DUP Special
Adviser, Stephen Brimstone, for his behaviour towards a member of the
Housing Board.

McCausland was protected by a petition of concern. Brimstone was
promoted. So how is the new Stormont different from the old – and why
are you fighting to preserve what is in effect an undemocratic
institution? (Those who advocate the democratisation of Stormont today
tend to be described as enemies of the peace process.)

Yes, you complained, but you failed to acknowledge that you helped to
design McCausland’s escape hatch. Why should we be expected to live
under such conditions?

Another argument is that Stormont represents political progress. This
column has previously argued that Stormont would fail because its
sectarian systems and structures hinder the delivery of social and
economic policies. (It was an unpopular view, but you would be amazed at
the people who now agree with it.)

It recognised that a mandatory, sectarian coalition would steer
ministerial decisions towards party electioneering rather than
collective government responsibility. It also argued that the absence of
social and economic objectives in the Good Friday and St Andrews
agreements, meant that Stormont was more cosmetic than real. (The
failure to include Westminster funding in the agreements allows the
Tories to cut spending here.)

With the exceptions of Michelle Gildernew and Michelle O’Neill,
ministerial ability in new Stormont could best be described as mediocre.
(Maybe government here just needs more Tyrone women.) Administrative
incompetence led to the failures to deliver the new police college, the
A5 road and a redeveloped Casement Park. Meanwhile Stormont slept during
the Nama sell-off.

So if Stormont were suspended, who would notice? Your entry into
government has made little difference to ordinary people. (Do you really
think anyone cares who is principal deputy speaker?) If you disagree,
explain for example, how Stormont has helped to reduce child poverty,
especially in west Belfast.

No one cares any more about talks and deadlines, or who is up for them
in that artificial world of verbal ambiguity and political fudge. One
person in five here is now on a hospital waiting list. Try fudging that
one.

A collapsed Stormont would give you the chance to build a new form of
government – one built on non-sectarianism and normal parliamentary
democracy with a government and opposition debating social and economic
issues. Non-sectarian politics is the only path to a united Ireland.

It would allow the redefinition of the Irish nation as including
unionists, thereby extending your electoral potential beyond Catholics.

Are you up for that – or can we expect the same old self-serving
Stormont? If that is all you are offering, don’t be surprised if no one
cares about Stormont or its eternal talks.