Elections in Northern Ireland are sometimes deplored as contributing more to community polarisation than political clarification and choice. This is much less true within the unionist and nationalist communities than between them. The very sharp tone of Mr John Hume's trenchant attack on Sinn Fein over the peace process, the IRA ceasefire and electoral pacts tells its own story about an impending election and competition between the two main nationalist parties as it approaches.
There is a great deal at stake for Mr Hume's party, the SDLP. He has taken a number of risks by becoming so closely involved in the dialogue with Sinn Fein that led to the ceasefire and lasted through the frustrating months in which minimal progress was made in getting inclusive talks off the ground. In the last round of Northern Ireland elections, to the Forum last May, there was a decided swing to Sinn Fein among middle class nationalists who would normally vote for the SDLP.
They were clearly frustrated with political immobility and what they saw as unionist and British intransigence, sentiments that can only have been reinforced by the events in Drumcree last July. If they remain with that party, despite the continuing IRA violence, this would be damaging for Mr Hume's political credibility. The arguments over an electoral pact must be seen in this perspective. It would make much tactical sense from the nationalist point of view in such constituencies as Mid Ulster and Fermanagh and South Tyrone and the new constituency of West Tyrone, but could of course contribute to a net gain for Sinn Fein at the SDLP's expense.
Mr Hume has therefore opened up his formidable polemical talent to argue the case against making an electoral pact with Sinn Fein so long as the IRA ceasefire is not restored. It would as he argues, be tantamount to voting for a continuing campaign of violence. It would gravely affect the credibility of the SDLP in the Republic, with the Clinton administration and in Europe among those who have taken risks to support the objective of inclusive talks, but only on the basis of a lasting ceasefire. Atrocities such as last week's shooting dead of Lance Bombardier Restorick can only alienate such powerful constituencies. They have also as Mr Hume argues, allowed the British and the unionists off the hook by changing the focus of the argument through violence.
Not only is this morally reprehensible. It is a grave political miscalculation as well. Real opportunities will arise from the elections in the North, in the Republic and in Britain this year to forge once again an inclusive talks process arising from fresh political mandates. The Ulster Unionists ability to wring concessions from Mr Major in the dying days of his government may add to nationalist voters frustrations with the peace process. But they would be foolish indeed to transfer their allegiance to a party that has clearly not resolved its attitude towards reaching a democratic settlement. As Mr Hume puts it, "without a ceasefire we are going to have to look elsewhere for a means of making progress".