Newton Emerson: Alliance Party’s rise requires reform of Stormont powersharing

The rise of the Alliance Party requires Stormont’s powersharing system to be reformed, Westminster sources have told The Irish Times, although they do not consider it practical to attempt this while trying to restore the executive after last week’s election. The government wants immediate efforts to get the DUP back into office under the existing rules, followed by later negotiation on reform once matters have settled and temperatures have cooled.

Getting the DUP back to Stormont in a few months is a realistic goal. Sir Jeffrey Donaldson has already reduced his demand on the protocol from "removal of the sea border" to "decisive action" by the UK government – a phrase that can mean whatever he needs it to mean after London does whatever it is going to do.

It seems there are those who would happily jettison the cross-community principle when unionist parties are not the majority

Starting negotiation on reform will be extraordinarily difficult, however. The challenge was summed up in a social media post this week by Peter Robinson, the former DUP leader, who Donaldson has brought back in as an adviser.

“When unionist parties formed the majority, the cry from the great and good was that in a divided society widespread support across the community was required,” Robinson wrote.

Newton Emerson: Things look bad for the DUP – but not too bad

---

Newton Emerson: Northern Ireland needs one person, one vote

---

Newton Emerson: While Johnson chips away at rules, Labour chips away at him

---

Newton Emerson: SF defence of DUP’s Stormont veto smacks of self-serving cynicism

---

“It has been noticeable how many of those same voices are now resiling from this position. It seems there are those who would happily jettison the cross-community principle when unionist parties are not the majority. In the negotiations that will undoubtedly come (sooner or later) any attempt to change the cross-community support principle must be resisted.”

This is the same Peter Robinson who has sought an end to mandatory coalition from the signing of the Belfast Agreement right up until last Thursday’s votes were counted. In his inaugural speech as First Minister in 2008, he said “we must work to transform the institutions to ensure that we move smoothly to democratic normality in the years ahead”.

In a party conference speech in 2010, he said: “For us the present arrangements are a transitional phase to a more normal form of democracy.”

Welfare reform

In 2014, with Sinn Féin obstructing the executive over welfare reform, he said “the structures of cross-community agreement” he helped negotiate at St Andrews eight years earlier were “a short-term solution . . . no longer fit for purpose” and reform must be “tackled in a St Andrews 2-type setting with government involvement”.

Robinson's successor has had a similar change of heart. Only last September Donaldson told a House of Lords committee: "I would like to see Northern Ireland move towards a voluntary coalition style of government".

On Monday he demanded other parties respect his “mandate” to deny Northern Ireland a government.

DUP supporters can become quite aggrieved if any of this is pointed out without mentioning Sinn Féin is as bad.

The reforms required to finally end this exhausting hypocrisy are straightforward in outline

Last June, with the Covid vaccination programme still under way, republicans threatened to collapse devolution by not nominating a deputy first minister. This week they are piously warning of the impact on healthcare if Donaldson does not nominate a deputy first minister.

Sinn Féin’s previous three-year walk out from Stormont, for which the DUP shares blame, was denounced throughout by the DUP as making a clear case for voluntary coalition.

The reforms required to finally end this exhausting hypocrisy are straightforward in outline. Cross-community voting is defined as either simple majorities of unionists and nationalists, or 60 per cent of all assembly members including 40 per cent each of unionists and nationalists. Alliance proposes simplifying this to a 60 per cent weighted majority, without designations of unionist, nationalist and other. The threshold might need to be raised for this new era of a 40:40:20 split to ensure unionists or nationalists could not be completely excluded.

Largest parties

A weighted majority is not appropriate for the executive. It would be more onerous than the current requirement for the two largest parties, whatever their combined size.

The obvious solution is to continue offering an executive place to every party large enough to qualify under current rules, but to no longer require that place to be taken.

Such a “voluntary-mandatory” coalition could be required to represent at least half of assembly seats, although minority governments are possible elsewhere. Exclusion of unionists or nationalists would become entirely their own responsibility if it was their choice to exclude themselves.

The challenge is not devising reforms but getting the two largest parties to agree to them. Perhaps Robinson’s call for a ‘St Andrews 2’ points to an approach.

Like most set-piece negotiations of the peace process, that 2006 agreement was between the British and Irish governments. Stormont parties were of course invited, involved and expected to sign up, but ultimately they were all given a choice of being at the table or on the menu. It worked – the DUP joined the executive after the British government warned direct rule would not be to unionism’s liking.

Three years from now Sinn Féin could be the Irish government. Does Donaldson fancy leaving reform until then?