Power-Sharing in the Crisis

The St Andrew's Agreement, like the Good Friday Agreement before it and Sunningdale before that, was predicated on power-sharing institutions. The representatives of unionism and nationalism share ministries in a cross-community Executive. This model, it is felt, acts to safeguard the interests of both contending identities and over time will act to reduce inter-communal tension.

The DUP argue that the collectivity of decision-making with the St Andrew's Agreement arrangements was extended over that exercised by the Executive under the Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement. In particular, they pointed to the new system of mutual vetoes over significant or controversial matters outside the agreed programme of government. While it is unclear to what extent this has actually restricted the free operation of Ministers within their own areas of competence, as demonstrated by the actions of Caitriona Ruane the Minister of Education, the current Executive has demonstrated a remarkable collectivity in comparison to the previous one despite the inclusion of DUP at the head of the high table.

Left-wing critics of the political mainstream within the north should not hugely surprised by this outcome. Afterall, what separates the parties in the main is increasingly the identity politics reflecting the ever greater polarisation of society across Northern Ireland. Even where they differ on social issues, it reflects the differing social aspirations of their 'community' as against the other. What they agree on is the economics of the status quo; a fact belied by the focus of the Programme for Government on competitiveness and export - as opposed to anything more radical.

Backing the Property-Holders

The recent intervention by the First and Deputy First Ministers through the North-South Ministerial Council to plead the case for property developers in the north is a case-in-point. Sinn Féin, who have previously saw fit to back the bank bailout (otherwise known as the great redistribution) have followed this up with lobbying to ensure that property developers and asset holders are not 'stung' as the Republic's National Assets Management Agency divested the tax-payer of property north of the border.

Such a sell-off could result in a collapse in the northern property market and while that might be good news for those paying rents or about to buy houses - it would be very bad for big business interests.

It is a sad reflection on Sinn Féin that they spent their efforts propping up property developers' interests at the cost of working families, when funding for the all-island bodies they placed such strategic investment in previously has been cut-back dramatically. One would have thought that these champions of the all-Ireland would have at least focussed their efforts in restricting the scale and scope of these cutbacks in the all-Ireland architecture.

Not be outdone by the Shinners rightward tack over the past year, the SDLP have already begun the task of identifying cutbacks to the Assembly's budget. Once again, of course, it was little more than the usual playing to the audience. Cutbacks of £405 million secured through amorphous, and universally acceptable, cuts to 'bureaucracy', the 'freezing of Assembly members’ pay' and a relatively painless 'moratorium on civil service recruitment'. Creeping into the end of the proposal was a throwaway commitment to the 'sale and lease-back of certain assets' i.e. what you might be tempted to call privatisation.

As a result of this huge windfall, the SDLP promised the moon and stars. Loans for small and medium businesses, the social economy, wage subsidies to reduce the growth in unemployment, grants for new businesses set up by those on unemployment, large scale capital projects, grants for tourism, extending natural gas infrastructure, improvements to electrical generation and investment for improved internet connections. The sad point is doing any one of these right might cost the headline sum identified and if the point was providing an economic stimulus, there was little consideration of impact that the cutbacks in public expenditure might have on consumption.

Such policy initiatives by the government parties in the north are filled with lies, commonplaces and the worst form of political opportunism. That few ever call them to account for wilfully underestimating the intelligence of the population reflects poorly on the sophistication and impartiality of the northern media.

Instead, what substitutes for commentary is the selective targetting of the 'opposing side's politicians' for political or economic illiteracy. This is predicated on the commentators clear affinity for the status quo system of economics and usually involves identifying the shortcomings of the opposition while manfully avoiding any cognition of the equally clueless state of the home teams.

It is merely a matter of time until commentators in the north come out with their rueful bemoaning about the cutbacks proposed by An Bord Snip - not despairing of their extent or impact - but instead sorry that nothing similar could be done domestically. What is clear is that once the current Comprehensive Spending Review runs its term in 2011, the cutbacks enforced by all the participants in the Stormont Executive will make those in An Bord Snip look positively light-handed in comparison.

Power-Sharing: A Failed Option

Socialism or Barbarism has come to view all parties of government in the north with equal distain. They are all now part of the problem. They climb over one another to share the reflected glory of anything and everything coming within an ass' roar of themselves. They compete to deliver public investment financed by private capital and to endear themselves as guardians of the interests of big domestic capitalists, property developers and the bankers. They forget all their kind words for working families when they consort with politicians who skillfully maintain anti-union practices.

Nationalist political parties are too focussed on advancing the narrow interests of the growing nationalist bourgeoisie to remain true to their commitment for equality for working-class people. Unionists long ago have dumped anything but the most paper-thin veneer that they care for working class unionist communities.

The whole system of governance in the north reinforces the narrow communitarianism which defines its society. Politicians present themselves primarily as representatives of their community. The peace process was about getting the representatives of both sides together; it was never about getting the people together.

Power-sharing may be necessary to protect the rights of nationalists but it does so at the cost of reinforcing the division that will necessitate its further continuation. One senses that this system will not be overturned if only for the positive benefits accruing to the majoritarian parties of the day.

The political division of unionism and nationalism is stronger today than ever before not least because the junior members of those political classes spare no effort in the attempt to profile themselves as 'better representatives for their own side'.

Reform Stalled on the Rocks of Centrist Mediocrity

Lost in the middle of this is any hope of reform or change. A tidal wave of cuts is about to hit the north and there is no sense in which anyone is really thinking about how this will impact. The system of competition within the two communities between DUP and UUP on one side and Sinn Féin and SDLP on the other reinforces the centrist trend. It is this that lies behind the collectivity identified in the opening paragraphs.

No party wants to be seen as standing alone. The pillorying of the Sinn Fein Minister for Education being a classic example of the cost when that happens. This is a very interesting case as the unionists oppose change to an anti-working class system of education and the nationalists want change but not too much - certainly not abolition of Catholic-run schooling.

The SDLP's behaviour in this case is of immediate relevance. They are in the intellectually dishonest but politically beneficial position of agreeing with the need for change but attacking Sinn Féin opportunistically every step of the way. If the DUP secure a guarantee on the retention of academic selection, it is the Shinners fault for being poor negotiators. If the Sinn Féin Minister presses ahead with change without Departmental authority they are moving too quickly, potentially illegally and without cross-party support.

As this case illustrates, the pressure inside the Executive will always be not take radical positions. It is for conformity. Every Minister coming in is faced with a similar challenge. How to do what is necessary without exposing your party to political damage. Inevitably watching representatives of all four parties is like watching a bunch of chickens peck each other's behinds. Is it any wonder alienation and disillusionment are spreading like wildfire - not least among the more capable professional layers.

In the context of the tsunami of cuts that are coming it will make for a messy and inadequate response. While we cannot identify where the cuts will be made with any great precision, we can be sure that they will be made disproportionately on the poor, working-class. As was the case with the rates cap and industrial derating, businessmen and the rich will be subvented once again. More schools and primary health provision will be closed with a disproportionate impact on rural communities and those living in isolation.

The power-sharing executive pools the mainstream parties together and forces them all to share in the political blame-game. The deal struck over the devolution of Policing and Justice powers may involve the Alliance in that coalition leaving only minor parties like the Greens outside the loop. In the end this will degrade the political process in the north and may, hopefully, stimulate interest in building a cross-community working class alternative to fight the cuts forced on us by our domestic political establishment.