Borderless thoughts on Politics, Public Affairs, the media and anything else that matters from Conall McDevitt, SDLP MLA for South Belfast
RSS icon Email icon Home icon

  • Durkan on powersharing

    Posted on September 8th, 2008 Conall McDevitt 4 comments

    Did Mark Durkan call for an end to power sharing this weekend?

    It would appear not.

    Did he question the way in which power is being shared between the DUP and SF?

    Yes, he most certainly did.

    Did he pose the question about whether the community designation system is the future?

    Yes, and more than that he said we should all hope it was not.

    Where does this leave us?

    Sinn Fein are incensed claiming Mark is calling for the reintroduction of majority rule and the DUP are very happy that he is. Fact is he is doing neither.

    Community designation was introduced to build confidence between the two communities and to create the safeguards that would allow the new institutions to bed down in a climate of shared responsibility and mutual trust. In Mark’s own words this was always meant to be a ‘biodegradable’ provision. As the institutions matured and the politics shifted from narrow sectarian squabbles to debates about real issues in a mature context, then the rules would shift to facilitate better government.

    At no point does this mean the surrender of power sharing. Quite the opposite. It means the proper realisation of shared government.

    How is this achieved?

    Firstly by keeping the system where parties qualify for the executive on the basis of their mandate, through D’hondt. This guarantees that parties get as many seats as they are entitled to.  

    Secondly by legislating for true equality and the guarantee of minority rights through a powerful and meaningful bill of rights. This guarantees that nationalist are unionist rights and protected in government.

    In other words no return to majority rule.

    Durkan deserves credit for starting the debate. The DUP-SF axis is leaving the electorate cynical and disillusioned with our institutions.

    Anything that shifts the debate back towards real government where power and responsibility are shared rather then divied out will be welcomed by the man and woman on the street.

    Business, Corporate Communications, Current Affairs, Good Friday Agreement 10 years on, Politics, Public Affairs, Public Relations
     

    4 responses to “Durkan on powersharing”

    1. Yank in Ulster September 8th, 2008 at 10:15

      I don’t see how removing communal designations makes the Executive function any better. It would help in the passing of legislation in the Assembly, but retaining d’Hondt does nothing for collective responsibility.

      Furthermore, legally protecting nationalists qua nationalists and unionists qua unionists is antithesis of liberal democracy. This would make our consociational model of power sharing even more rigid. You might as well just keep communal designations, which is less restrictive on the lives of all of us.

    2. Conall McDevitt September 8th, 2008 at 10:21

      Keeping D’hondt under a system without designation allows parties to evolve beyond their narrow community bases.
      It still guarnatees that mandates will be respected but also allows parties to move beyond simply representing commnuites.

    3. O’Conall Street » Blog Archive » Robinson endorses post-sectarian politics October 18th, 2008 at 07:55

      [...] if she agreed with Mark Durkan when he said that we should all have the ambition to move beyond the community designation system in the Assembly and that this would be made possible because of the guarantees that a Bill of [...]

    4. We need an SDLP - UUP alternative | O'Conall Street June 28th, 2009 at 08:22

      [...] need to consider whether compulsory power sharing is working. This is not a new argument. Last year Mark Durkan raised the issue in the context of a debate around a strong and inclusive Bill of [...]

    Leave a reply

Search

Powered by WordPress