What is to be done about Stormont?
At present, we have a crisis about the health service and a related crisis about social care. We have another about the lack of sewerage and water supply infrastructure, writes economist and author Paul Gosling.
And then we have the failures and weaknesses in parts of our education and skills systems. Far too many teenagers drop out early from school, leaving without the skills needed for good careers. Many become long-term unemployed or economically inactive.
Meanwhile, one-third of our school leavers who go to university are forced to move elsewhere as we do not have enough undergraduate places. And this leaves our employers desperate for both graduates and workers with high level vocational skills. Our economy, productivity, and collective wealth all suffer.
To make matters worse, the shortage of affordable childcare places means that many parents – especially mothers – who have highly valued skills are unable to work. Other carers are prevented from working because of the gaps in social care coverage.
It is enough to make you despair. And that is exactly what I felt after working within Stormont for two years as a political advisor. Every effort at making improvements felt like an enormous boulder being pushed uphill, which came toppling down whenever you took a breath.
The single thing that shocked me most was that more than a quarter of a century after the Good Friday Agreement, there were still attitudes that felt like straightforward sectarianism. Decisions were taken simply for the good of one community, irrespective of what would benefit the majority across society. Proposals that seemed obvious common sense were blocked because they were perceived as benefiting one community more than another.
How, then, to make progress? The basis of the Good Friday Agreement was a sharing of decision-making, which in practice means a mutual veto on decisions that do not have cross-community agreement. (For which, read agreement between the two main parties.)
That mechanism was a good way of ending conflict, but it has not led to good government. In fact, for 40 per cent of the time since the GFA, it has not led to any type of government. It is a process that has prevented a range of contentious – but desperately needed – decisions.
On health and social care reform; water charges; expanding integrated education; ending academic selection; a bill of rights; developing Long Kesh; increasing university places; recognising the Irish language; and – perhaps above all – charging citizens enough to raise the funds needed to match Stormont’s ambitions, comparable to those levied in England.
If this were a political charge sheet, I would unequivocally convict our political system, if not necessarily the politicians themselves. They are (to an extent) trying to make a structure work that inherently allows most contentious decisions to be blocked and also allows ministers to operate personal or communal fiefdoms that operate independently of what is best for Northern Ireland.
Seven years ago, and then again in a second edition five years ago, I examined the arguments for Irish unity as a way of escaping this political and structural quagmire. In a new book, I consider the extent to which progress has been made in either reforming Stormont or preparing for how Irish unity could be achieved. In my view, advocates of both positions are falling short.
Where there has been significant progress is with the Taoiseach’s Shared Island Unit and the research it has commissioned – in particular, from the Economic and Social Research Unit – which evaluates the differences between north and south. In many respects, those differences are significant and in some cases substantial. Unifying two jurisdictions that have diverged over the last century will, or would, be a challenge. But at least there is clarity on the task.
A common starting position exists for either preparing for unity or strengthening the viability of Northern Ireland within the UK. This would be to improve cross-border partnerships. Whether in healthcare provision, skills development, university provision, energy security, or environmental protection, there is a strong case for building joint working: cutting costs, improving outcomes. None of this in itself is a threat to a tradition, nor a presage of the future.
What seems to me indisputable is that we cannot continue as we are and expect the outcomes to change. Stormont is a failure today and either needs to be reformed or removed and that argument applies equally to those who favour the constitutional status quo and those who argue for an Irish unity in which Stormont is retained within a federal system. That would merely provide a pretence of change without changing the decision-making substance.
Paul Gosling is author of A New Ireland: A Five Year Review of Progress, published by Colmcille Press
