SEAN SWAN,
Sir, - The Northern Assembly is in trouble - again. It seems to be permanently in a state of crisis, because it contains three main flaws.
Firstly, it institutionalises sectarianism by requiring parties to designate themselves as either "nationalist" or "unionist".
Secondly, this designation creates instability because certain legislation cannot be passed, nor offices filled, without the support of the designated sectarian blocs.
Thirdly, the fact that the Assembly only has devolved powers held at London's pleasure - as opposed to the inalienable powers that exist in a federal institution with a clear division of powers - means that irresponsible politicians are always angling for London to come in and change the rules in their favour.
Sectarian "designation" is not required for the creation of ministers - that is done on the d'Hondt principle. It is required only for the election of three offices - Chair, First Minister and Deputy First Minister - and certain other pieces of legislation, or where there is a "petition of concern" supported by at least 30 MLAs. Could not these offices be rotated on the d'Hondt principle, as is the case with the mayoralty in most local authorities?
A clear Bill of Rights would be sufficient to safeguard against any legislative abuses if it were overseen by some judicial body, such as a Supreme Court or Constitutional Court. "Petitions of concern" could also be addressed to this judicial body. Perhaps a Bill of Rights would, in itself, be insufficient to cover all possible cases. Maybe it is time to consider the need for a formal, written constitution. This would negate the need for "designation".
If "designation" were no longer required, parties could opt for abstentionism without this making the Assembly unworkable. Those left would be free to get on with the job of running Northern Ireland. An Assembly free of "designation" could not be held to ransom by the threat of withdrawal.
The role of the Assembly would be further strengthened if the areas over which it currently has authority were granted inalienably to it through a clear federalist division of powers, as opposed to the current on-Westminster's-sufferance devolution of powers. This would place local control in local hands and end the scenario of local politicians play-acting in childish attempts to manipulate London, or London and Dublin, to change the rules.
If, as now seems possible, the Agreement is to be renegotiated, the division of powers and a written constitution should be seriously considered. - Yours, etc.,
SEAN SWAN, Finaghy, Belfast.