It is a good thing that Assembly elections are now proceeding in Northern Ireland. It would have been better, of course, if they could have been based on a definite agreement to work the institutions afterwards, writes Martin Mansergh.
But the further discussions that will now be necessary are best conducted by parties that have a fresh mandate, which cannot be disputed.
The IRA fell short chiefly in regard to the amount of transparency they allowed to Gen de Chastelain. Trimble fell short on fulfilling his side of the bargain. For all that, a psychological Rubicon has been crossed with real gain. With substantial decommissioning and forthcoming statements by both the IRA and Gerry Adams, no one now believes in an IRA return to war or seriously doubts Sinn Féin's commitment to democratic politics.
There may still be question marks over the timing of the final consignment to history of the paramilitary chapter and the ending of the type of "special activities" which eventually caused the Workers' Party such acute embarrassment that it split, and which are more and more a hostage to fortune.
The opinion poll in the Belfast Telegraph last Wednesday was interesting in that it showed all four main parties at between 20 per cent and 25 per cent of the popular vote.
It does not leave much room for the smaller parties, Alliance, PUP and Women's Coalition, which provide a useful leavening. The value of their place in the politics of Northern Ireland should not be in question.
In principle, any of the main parties could emerge as the largest, thus having the right to put forward a nominee for first minister. Such are the safeguards built into devolution, with the first minister and deputy first minister for most practical purposes co-equals, and having to govern together (or not at all), the outcome should not be as important as it might be in other systems. On the other hand, it may be hard to play down the psychological impact of any result that is not as-you-were.
The importance of voting is well understood by committed supporters of Sinn Féin and the DUP. The majority, who, according to the poll, prefer the Trimble-Durkan combination, would need to bestir themselves, if it is to happen. Those who choose the toughest champions available to negotiate for their community need to take into account the increased risk of prolonged stand-off, breakdown and failure.
There is little tradition of lower-preference cross-community voting, which PR makes possible. Yet, if engaged in on a more widespread scale, it has the potential in certain instances to determine the destination of last seats, and, more importantly, might begin to encourage a greater sensitivity by parties to concerns of the other community.
What is striking about this election, compared to the past, and notwithstanding the usual fierce campaign rhetoric, is the growing moderation of Northern Ireland politics. The extremes are no longer so extreme, and the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP are beginning to resemble two halves of a centre bloc. Everyone in Northern Ireland, bar active but politically irrelevant dissident paramilitaries, wants peaceful democratic politics to work, on the basis of the Good Friday agreement, or, in the case of the DUP, a slightly amended version of it.
This is probably Paisley's last throw. Leading members of the DUP have taken up ministerial positions, visited Dublin. If they were to win, do they take power, or do they upset the whole apple-cart? This calls for sophisticated risk-assessment on the part of their electorate.
Would Tony Blair put himself out for Rev Ian Paisley the way he has done for Trimble? What effect would a Paisley victory have on British and international opinion? Would it really strengthen the union with Great Britain? Would it encourage investment? How actually does one party unilaterally renegotiate, or walk away from, an agreement, without the power of a George W. Bush?
Trimble has endured just about every possible political ordeal, and his resilience surpasses that of any other contested leader in these islands. Within unionism, his role has been a historic one. His party more than others has the capacity to act as catalyst to complete the full democratisation of Northern Ireland and the creation of an unarmed peace. It is a challenge, in the outcome of which everyone on the island has an interest, and can only be achieved with patience, persistence and by not deliberately setting impossible demands.
The slogan "Simply British" sounds a bit monocultural, writing off any future for Irish unionism. One wonders where it leaves efforts to foster an Ulster-Scots identity.
The SDLP is the party with the most honourable track record of constructive politics over the past 30 years in the most adverse circumstances, and who have sacrificed their party interest for the sake of peace. Many individuals from Southern parties are helping out in their campaign out of respect for and identification with their politics. Yet the SDLP feel hard done by and marginalised in recent negotiations, but are natural members of a functioning Executive. They have to convince the nationalist electorate that their services and policies will be as important in the future as they have been in the past.
The ending of conflict by the republican leadership has occupied centre stage over the past 10 years. There will not be in the near future a united Ireland, yet the politics of the entire island has been transformed. By international standards, it has been a stunning and on the whole well-sustained performance, which now needs to be brought safely to a successful conclusion, not least if they wish to hold some of their new-won support, which has begun to get impatient.
I regret that a respected and independent-minded figure of integrity like John Kelly stood down from Sinn Féin. A party capable of accommodating diverse opinions, and communities accommodating different backgrounds and allegiances, would be the best proof of a new democratic spirit in Northern Ireland that will in time bring down the walls.