Three Thousand Versts of Loneliness

All the main parties in Northern Ireland, other than Sinn Féin, have indicated that the current brand of mandatory coalition at Stormont is not a system which they would choose to operate in the medium to long term. They acknowledge, uniformly, that safeguards must be built into our regional government to ensure that power-sharing is maintained, but there is consensus that the present arrangement lacks accountability, enervates democracy and breeds inefficiency. Problematically, however, with republicans explicitly wedded to carve-up government and the DUP more tacitly so, there is little prospect that the Assembly will feature an official opposition in the foreseeable future. Which leaves the parties, and in particular the two that have taken their positions in the Executive, only to find themselves frozen out of decision making, with the task of reimagining how the existing structures might be better put to work. Although the carve-up coalition partners might be the current benef...

Comment is Free carries an article by James Marson examining perceived discontent fomented by the economic crisis, in Russia. It is a more thoughtful piece than the brand of ‘perfidious Kremlin’ geopolitical waffle which most commentators are producing . Whilst the Federation is by no means the oppressive totalitarian state which is frequently depicted by western media, undeniably a more open, accountable approach would afford Russian democracy more air to breathe. Medvedev is by no means a lost cause in terms of steering his country towards that outcome. I have previously insisted that Putinite notions of a ‘power vertical’ and ‘sovereign democracy’ are by no means as insidious as they have often been portrayed. In many respects they simply represent Russian solutions to Russian problems, drawing on a political tradition which differs dramatically from the experience in western Europe and the US. Against the backdrop of a huge, diverse state, Putinism has attempted to strengthen...

Examining the substance of Barack Obama’s rhetoric, an article in January’s Prospect noted that, not only is there nothing particularly audacious about hope, but if the formulation were reversed to read, ‘the hope of audacity’, it would make little difference to either the meaning or content of the phrase. It was an observation which returned to me as I listened to Obama’s inauguration speech yesterday. The address was not to my taste. Upholstered by metaphor and platitude, it sounded like narrative from a Hollywood movie. American presidents frequently do. There were traces of a significant message, but it was difficult to disentangle from high flown, meaningless speechifying. Burke’s Corner takes the US to task for ignoring its own Lockean myth in its inauguration ceremony. It forms less a celebration of sovereignty which rests with the people than a quasi monarchical coronation. Obama is elected whereas our own head of state is not, but it is hard to disagree that this disti...

Both the Irish News and Redemption’s Son have carried articles supporting the contention that Northern Ireland’s executive should be comprised of fewer departments. A motion in the Assembly proposed that the existing 11 department administration should be cut to six or seven. The DUP found backing from Ulster Unionist and Alliance MLAs, whilst Sinn Féin abstained and the motion was passed. Government at Stormont, and the Assembly from which it is drawn, are bloated institutions. Five million people are represented by 129 MSPs in Scotland. The Welsh Assembly is composed of sixty members for a population twice that of Northern Ireland. Meanwhile we have 108 MLAs. And Sir Reg Empey has raised the infantile fashion in which money is squandered by this cadre of men and women. His point is that a reduction in departments is not enough, on its own, to save money. We need to cut civil service functions and we need a commensurate effort by MLAs not to fuel bureaucracy unnecessarily....

Newton Emerson takes an interesting approach to the Bill of Rights Forum, detecting in its proposals an attempt to impose the primacy of ‘civic society’ in government. Emerson argues that the various interest groups have not only ignored political representatives' input in the forum, and shaped the report’s proposals exclusively on their own terms, but they are also creating an executive role for the judiciary who must oversee all legislation to make sure that it conforms not only to the bill’s provisions, but also to its spirit. The Forum established a working group to establish how judicially enforceable its suggestions might be. This group paid particular attention to ‘programmatic’ or ‘target’ rights. The report recommends that a ‘justiciability audit’ be carried out to continue this process. Yet more money required from the public purse. The argument so far is that economic and social legislation should be brought before a judge even if the objective of that legislation ...

I am in no way a champion of greater funding for the Irish Language, although I believe it does deserve its slice of the budget allocated to culture. However a story from the Irish News highlights that spending on Ulster Scots from the DCAL will soon outstrip spending on Irish and this is instructive of how the sectarian carve-up in government here is directly connected to the fashion in which DUP and SF ministers are managing their departments. Put simply, ministers such as Edwin Poots and Caitriona Ruane fund and promote their personal and community interests to the exclusion of projects for the other community or projects which would benefit both communities. Ruane’s focus on Irish medium education, whilst her department cannot produce a clear plan to replace academic selection (which will affect everyone) is the classic example. Less publicised was Ruane’s decision to fund primary school language teachers in a scheme to encourage bi-lingualism in our children. What’s the probl...

A genuinely defining moment for the development of oppositional politics presented itself in the Northern Ireland Assembly yesterday and alas Ulster Unionism appears to have been rather left behind. The Programme for Government was accepted by 60 votes to 24 and the SDLP’s MLAs were numbered among the 24 dissenters (with the exception of Social Development Minister Margaret Ritchie). The UUP in contrast voted for the PfG after tabling an amendment proposing that the document be subject to review and revision. It appears that voting on the Draft Budget will divide along similar lines. The SDLP tabled a more comprehensive amendment which would have reinstated the priorities of a Shared Future, the policy document which has been shelved in the wake of devolution. The Programme for Government has been identified as an imprecise and aspirational document on this blog before and it seems only appropriate that it should be altered to reflect a greater emphasis on sharing, rather than th...

Brian Feeney's latest piece of sectarian bluster was blogged here . O'Neill fascinatingly took apart Feeney's understanding of government and history in Lebanon over on A Pint of Unionist Lite . To surmise, if we were to logically extrapolate the thesis this tiresomely partial columnist advanced, we would conclude that in all divided societies, functioning democracy is not possible because majorities cannot be trusted not to oppress minorities. One such divided society is Ukraine , where Party of the Regions leader Viktor Yanukovych, whose party narrowly lost a bitterly contested snap election, is suggesting that a government of national unity needs to be formed. Perhaps we should send over Mr Feeney and he can provide much needed advice on cosociational models of government to aid the people of Ukraine? Or would we find that there are minorities and minorities and that the pro-Russian population of Ukraine don't quite fit into the type Feeney is so eager to protect?

Brian Feeney consistently produces republican tinged commentary which belies his status as a supposed constitutional nationalist. Quite simply he reviles and detests unionists. Feeney’s latest contribution is effectively his contention that the people of Northern Ireland should forever be denied accountable government or democratic norms, basically because he believes we can’t be trusted with them. It doesn’t take too much reading between the lines to uncover Feeney’s subtext. The electorate cannot be allowed to hold the executive to account because unionists are a majority and can’t be trusted: “The arrangement is the price unionists have to pay for making themselves so objectionable over the 50 years they had a free hand here. “ Northern Ireland is forever to be consigned to the status of Lebanon, because Feeney is a MOPE and unionists are in his view irreformable, this despite the fact that every suggestion of introducing opposition at the Assembly has been presaged by an acknow...

It is difficult to take Daithi McKay’s posturing over the Seymour Sweeney controversy remotely seriously, but understandable disquiet within the executive about the affair illustrates perfectly the inadequacies and frailties of the form of putative government established in Northern Ireland. In an executive established by enforced coalition, unity is only ever a cosmetic façade and when a hint of controversy manifests itself, naturally this flimsy construction comes crashing down as the other parties jostle to distance themselves from their supposed partner’s difficulties. The current government will most likely survive the Causeway issue, but sooner or later the whole fragile edifice will disintegrate. Of course the very idea that disparate or indeed diametrically opposed parties can deliver coherent government without an element of opposition is inherently flawed. Either they merely allude to government, endlessly prevaricating on important issues and producing only a compromised ...