IS it even conceivable in our era of partnership that a joint statement issued by IBEC and ICTU could be described by any political party as "somewhere between disingenuous and feeble"? Yet this was how a statement last week by the informal "Group of 7" business and trade union organisations in Northern Ireland was described to the Financial Times by an Ulster Unionist source.
The Group of 7 was formed in July 1996 after the conflict at Drumcree. It supported a Yes vote in the referendum on the Belfast Agreement. It has been quiet since then, until last week when it issued a statement calling for the simultaneous establishment of a Northern Ireland Executive and a start to decommissioning.
It called on the Republican movement "to concede to civil society. . . the vitally important gesture on decommissioning which it has withheld from its Unionist opponents". It added: "In this Statement, a substantial part of civil society has given strong and unequivocal support to a fully inclusive political process." The emphasis on civil society marks how the Northern "social partners" see themselves as distinct to political society. The development of Partnership 2000 has been along the same lines, with a national collective bargaining process having evolved over the decade to become, effectively, a new model of governance for the State. The difference between a National Wage Agreement and our present partnership is huge. The fact that Partnership 2000 is a layer of governance (though not quite government) poses the question of the democratic and practical limits on partnership in a way which no national wage deal would.
Part of the Belfast Agreement is the establishment of the Civic Forum to gather the opinions of representatives of civil society. The voluntary Group of 7 expects to disband and carry on its role through the forum.
Just as partnership had its origins in a crisis which it outgrew, the Civic Forum outgrew one immediate purpose as a way to give the much-admired Women's Coalition a voice in Northern Ireland affairs, in the event it won no Assembly seats (which, in fact, it did). The forum was also set up as an alternative to an upper chamber of the Assembly.
It will have 60 members, drawn from business (seven members), trade unions (seven), voluntary/community organisations (18), churches (five), culture, victims, agriculture and fisheries, arts and sports, community relations, education and nominees of the First and Deputy First Ministers. There is very little detail yet on how it will work, other than a indication that arrangements will be proposed to the Assembly on how the Forum's views will be presented to it.
The Civic Forum mirrors best the National Economic and Social Forum in Dublin. This has 49 members, also drawn from a wide variety of representatives of civil society. It does not mirror Partnership 2000, as it is not an agreement with the political executive.
The Civic Forum will liaise with any joint consultative body set up by the two administrations in Dublin and Belfast. If governance evolves in Northern Ireland, as it has in this jurisdiction, then the Civic Forum is likely to grow in importance. And then, the same questions may be asked of it, as are suggested by our present arrangements.
Leave aside the claim that agreements between the political executive and representatives of civil society might undermine electoral democracy. It is only a matter of time before we realise that we may have too complex a structure of executive and consultative governance both North and South.
In the Republic, we have the consultative NESF, the NESC, Partnership 2000 mechanisms, the Seanad and Oireachtas committees. We will soon have North South bodies and new regional authorities to add to them, alongside the existing structures of local government, health boards and county enterprise boards.
In the North, local government structures will persist, as will a layer of government from London. For North and South, there will be the Council of the Isles to work with too.
On top of us all are the European Union structures, including Commission, Council of Ministers, Parliament and their own consultative bodies.
Practicality will surely require a rationalisation of all the various consultative, representative and executive bodies. Moreover, it may not be sustainable to diffuse political authority and decision-making too widely or too far from the voter. This may not be a democratic deficit, but it could be democratic confusion.
The instinct to leave political bargaining and decision-making to elected political representatives is well-grounded. It could even have had a part in the Ulster Unionists' dismissal of the G7 statement, beneath traditional suspicion of the all-Irelandism of business and trade unions.
Oliver O'Connor is an investment funds specialist.
