Why Martin must be able to take Stormont's top job
If unionists will not serve under a Sinn Fein First Minister they will be giving much less than they expect from republicans, argues Malachi O'Doherty
Friday, 29 January 2010
Print
Email
The unionist parties in Northern Ireland are pulling together. They have looked into the future and have seen a scenario which appalls them.
Parties that support the union with Britain represent the greater part of the Northern Ireland community. The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 ensured that, with the unionist majority in the region, there will always be a unionist First Minister, until demographic change, or mass conversion, alters the inherent balance between the two communities.
That prospect was slightly adjusted by the St Andrews Agreement. The legislation following from that agreement determines that, in the event of the largest party in Northern Ireland coming from the smaller community, that party will be able to appoint the First Minister.
At a time when unionism has been fragmented, the prospect of Sinn Fein being the largest party has appeared better than ever - though they may be nervous of testing the degree to which stories about Gerry Adams's handling of recent abuse complaints have dented their vote.
And Sinn Fein, which no doubt would relish topping the poll, makes the argument that it shouldn't really matter whether the First Minister is a nationalist or a unionist. Their interpretation is that the First and Deputy First Ministers hold equal positions.
For unionists, the difference between the two positions is so important that, apparently, practically every issue which divides the DUP and the Ulster Unionist Party can be compromised to prevent Sinn Fein appointing a First Minister in Northern Ireland.
So, what does this say about unionism?
Well, for a start it says that neither unionist party accepts that the First and Deputy First Ministers are equal. There is only one of those positions which either main unionist party thinks a unionist should fill.
By positioning themselves to form an alliance to prevent Sinn Fein taking the First Ministry, both unionist parties are attempting to refute the Sinn Fein understanding that there is currently a requirement on unionism to treat republicans as equals.
If the unionists are seriously saying that they could not bear to serve under a Sinn Fein First Minister, duly elected, under agreements which they have assented to, then there are disturbing implications that follow from that.
The first of these is that unionist assent to the Good Friday Agreement and the St Andrews Agreement are qualified; they are conditional on the maintenance of a unionist majority.
And that means that unionists concede less to republicans than republicans concede to unionists. And worse, unionists think it right that they should withhold the fullest commitment to the spirit and letter of the agreement which was supposed to have settled conflict here. Republicans are giving unionists something that, it appears, unionists are averse to giving republicans - their compliance with the electorate's wish that they should serve in the Deputy First Minister's position.
Of course, no unionists have said blatantly that they would refuse to serve alongside Sinn Fein in an office which they would regard as subservient.
None have even said that they do regard the Deputy First Minister's office as subservient to the First Minister's - a statement which would be controversial in itself and would cause unease within Sinn Fein.
But their determination to prevent the emergence of a Sinn Fein First Minister, through unionist parties pulling together, suggests that these principles are fundamental to unionist thinking.
How can it be, nationalists wonder, that two unionist parties which have spent most of last 40 years in intense rivalry with each other, would prefer to sink their differences and pursue communal consolidation than to accept a republican as First Minister. Nationalists, after all, regard the supremacy of the First Minister over the Deputy First Minister as merely symbolic.
A Sinn Fein First Minister would not bring us any closer to a united Ireland. But if the prospect of a Sinn Fein First Minister is brought closer by unionist division, then you have to ask why unionists at St Andrews agreed to a clause which permitted the largest party - even a party from a minority community - to take that office.
Peter Robinson was at St Andrews, so was Ian Paisley. Did they like that clause? Was there something in it which served their interests? When a new Assembly meets for the first time after an election, the parties designate themselves as either nationalist or unionist. But it is not the largest designation which takes the First Ministry, but the largest party.The clause which determines that provides a dynamic incentive for parties within the designation to pull together and try to consolidate.
In a place like Northern Ireland, where virtually all unionists are Protestant and virtually all nationalists are Catholic, this amounts to an instrument within the constitutional arrangements for the enhancement and perpetuation of sectarian division.
One of the early critiques of the Good Friday Agreement was that it institutionalised sectarian division, but this clause energises that division, provides the mechanism by which it will grow and deepen.
Yet most of us, when we voted for the agreement, did so in the hope that it would end sectarianism. Unionists would better serve the wider community's hopes of ending sectarianism if they were as willing to deputise for Sinn Fein as Sinn Fein is to deputise for them, when that is the way the votes fall.
Post a comment
Limit: 500 characters
View all comments that have been posted about this article
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by BelfastTelegraph.co.uk's Terms of Use.
Posts submitted in UPPERCASE letters will be rejected.
Comments
37 Comments
What are polotics?
Senile dementia with a minty freshness? I'm not surprised you find many things too confusing to understand, stve. You have my sympathy on that issue.
Posted by Ulysses32 | 15.02.10, 13:59 GMT
useless, you are talking in irrelevant riddles. Again. lol
polotics is inclusive?
start the pills again
Posted by stve | 15.02.10, 09:15 GMT
Forced repatriation to either side - and let the good people of NI live in peace!
Posted by Lo | 13.02.10, 10:54 GMT
Participation in an event does not make one inclusive.
Inclusive: Government, Politics & Diplomacy) not excluding any particular groups of people.
That is a defintion of St Patrick's day not the OO.
You have heard the saying "A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square?"
Maybe senile dementia is affecting your natural progressive logic.
Anyway, it would appear that you have no-one left to vote for next election.
Posted by Ulysses32 | 12.02.10, 10:48 GMT
useless, address the points I have made, or else desist making insults. The OO have and are presently as you have admitted inclusive. That is contrary to your community's opinion, which is in denial. Until you stop voting for terrorist scum, then I can take you seriously.
Posted by stve | 11.02.10, 14:20 GMT
stve, you consistently criticise your self over and over again. Civil debate? Yeah right.
Stating that the Ornge Order celebrate St Patrick's day does not make the OO inclusive, it merely means that they happen to celebrate something that others do. The fact that they celebrate Christmas doesn't make them inclusive either. St Patrick is the patron saint of all Ireland and should be celebrated by all.
Incidentally, "terrorists" in government? Jim Allister begs to differ with you on that one.
Posted by Ulysses32 | 11.02.10, 13:21 GMT
so uysless, you admit the OO is inclusive? I do not 'have a problem' with st pats day, I merely think it has been hijacked by the chukkys with their celtic tops and tri colours. I refer you and jqpubic to my rhetorical question and maybe you two chukkys can reflect on the FACT that your community vote in their shameful droves for murdering scum. You are what is holding us back.the GAA is as bad. 21st century needs democracy and a shared future of equality, not terrorists in charge.
Posted by stve | 10.02.10, 12:25 GMT
In the same light, you shouldn't have a problem with the GAA, stve. Or are we trolling again.
Dont you see the sheer sickness in that facet of your position?
Posted by Ulysses32 | 10.02.10, 10:52 GMT
"Cavemen community", "shameful", "terrorists".
stve, 1690 is calling, do us all a favour and take the first bus back.
The 21st Century simply isn't made for philistines such as yourself.
Posted by John Q. Public | 10.02.10, 10:42 GMT
so, loyalist criminals aren't human beings, uysless? but republican criminals are fit to be seen not just as human beoings, but you actually want them to run the country! Dont you see the sheer sickness in that facet of your position? Lets put it back to you and your community. Imagine a member of the shankill butchers formed a party and unionists voted them in, and placed them in the executive. Would you think that was correct, and 'democratic'? I think that would be abhorrent. The same as I find it abhorrent to view ira in the same place, guilty of more heinous crimes than any. Sick.
Posted by stve | 10.02.10, 09:09 GMT
You appear to be the only one with a problem against St Patrick's day, stve as evidenced on other threads.
Dear, oh dear. Are you claiming yet another defeat as victory again? Dear, oh dear.
You may note that myself and others have pointed out before that St Patrick's day is for everyone Irish. Note that Robert Saulters professes the same.
Sorry, I have to go. I have a stitch from laughing too much.
Posted by Ulysses32 | 10.02.10, 08:46 GMT
uysless, doesn't that answer your question about the OO then? GOTCHA!
So much for the narrow minded bigots in the OO then, uh?
Inclusive and tolerant as usual, unlike you cavemen voting for terrorists.
Posted by stve | 09.02.10, 16:20 GMT
You would think that the Orange Order would vet their ranks seeing as it is allegedly a religious organisation. I would have thought that an organisation would steer of anyone committing such heinous crimes as those by the Shankill Butchers.
And commemorating a Shankill Butcher as a human being? A bit of a stretch to call them anything other than animals. But hey, let's commemorate them, even though he was killed by the son of one of th UDA men he killed.
Posted by Ulysses32 | 09.02.10, 15:18 GMT
Ballymena 2004.
Robert Saulters said "I would encourage people to take part in such events as it is a great occasion. St Patrick is our patron saint and we should celebrate that."
Mr Saulters said he was delighted to be taking part in a St Patrick's Day parade.
"This is the third one I have been on here, they have been doing it for three years. Of course we have been doing it for some time in lodges throughout the country and it's nice that Ballymena is coming out on it today."
Would like more?
Posted by Ulysses32 | 09.02.10, 12:20 GMT
It's a very sad reflection on Northern Irish society that people such as stve continue to poison popular discourse with their venom.
The poor man truly believes that the Orange Order don't carry paramilitary flags, don't preach sectarian hatred against Catholics and of course, everyone from the Nationalist community are terrorists just waiting to destroy his beloved statlet.
Indeed, the guy rants about "Irish" culture as if it were a strange disease not realizing that he himself comes from the island of Ireland! Talk about delusion.
<
Many have disabused him of his lunatic notions but it's a waste of time. The man deserves pity, not reproach.
Posted by François Arouet | 09.02.10, 12:17 GMT
uysless, where does the OO walk on St Patricks day? You still havent explained that falsehood to me. Also, there are no OO lodges as explained before who carry paramilitary emblems. We all know that lodges commemorate all deceased members as they choose as human beings. SFIRA have killed thousands, literally, actually hands on. Your community still vote for them.
Posted by stve | 09.02.10, 10:48 GMT
OK, John. Let's see here.
The Old Boyne Island Heroes have commemorated the killer Bobby `Basher' Bates on a bannerette with the words `In fond memory of our fallen brethren'. A Shankill Butcher no less.
Where Billy Wright and Johnny Adair members of the Loyal Orders?
Three children murdered in 1996. They burned to death as a result of their house being firebombed because of the Drumcree ban.
Granted a rectangle isn't a square, but a square is certainly a rectangle.
Posted by Ulysses32 | 08.02.10, 14:53 GMT
Republicans talk about the orange order as if it was a terrorist organisation. No, they did not kill thousands, you and your beloved Sinn Fein killed thousands. Every time a catholic votes for Sinn Fein they are supporting the murder of innocent protestants. And they compare that to a march down the road. Sick.
Posted by john | 08.02.10, 04:23 GMT
The thousands who were killed as per your current figures, do you think it wise to put their killers in charge of policing and justice?
Posted by stve | 03.02.10, 11:07 GMT
I was merely correcting you on a certain point about Nelson Mandela and I am glad you appreciate my effort to provide you with a more fuller picture of the Troubles.
As to continuing a circular debate based on history. I think I'll leave it there.
Posted by Ulysses32 | 03.02.10, 09:09 GMT
37 Comments