THE BELFAST AGREEMENT OF 1998: from ethnic democracy to a multicultural consociational settlement?
Paul Bew
From: A farewell to arms? From 'long war' to long peace in Northern Ireland edited by Michael Cox, Adrian Guelke and Fiona Stephen
Manchester University Press 2000
What is the Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998, which was supported by 71 per cent of those voting in the referendum in Northern Ireland on 22 May 1998, and how did it come about ?(1)
One recent interpretation by Professor Brendan O'Leary stresses that the Agreement is in conformity with the essential principles of Arend Lijphart's concept of consociationalism: it also draws attention to the long-term academic interest of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Dr Mo Mowlam, in such a theory, as well as the fact, as well as the fact that 'at least one of her advisors has had an abiding interest in the subject. (2) The same article concedes, however, that politicians under the pressure of events are capable of coming up with similar arrangements without any necessary recourse to an elaborate theoretical backdrop. The analysis of the Agreement presented here will follow this latter approach; not least because earlier research has demonstrated that the conceptualisation of a previous attempt at a settlement, the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, as 'coercive consociationalism' was
flawed.(3) This has also been the approach of writers advocating the type of settlement actually attempted in 1998.(4)
The top line of 'Heads of Agreement' of January 1998 which heralded the Stormont Agreement document was 'balanced constitutional change'.(5) Now that the Belfast Agreement is completed we can see exactly what was meant by that phrase. There will be, it is clear, significant changes to both to British legislation and to the Irish Constitution of 1937. The British government has decided to repeal the Government of Ireland Act of 1920. Some republicans profess to think this is very significant in a positive way, while some unionists are alarmed by the suggestion that in some way Northern Ireland's position within the UK is being weakened.
The nature of the constitutional deal
The Government of Ireland Act has been seen as Britain making a one-sided claim to supremacy over Northern Ireland regardless of the views of the people living there. It sits uneasily with later solemn declarations by Britain that the union is dependent upon, and arises solely from, majority support in the province - declarations given by the British government at the time of the Sunningdale Agreement in December 1973 and the Anglo-Irish Agreement of November 1985 and the Joint Declaration of December 1993.(6) In other words, one might say that the Government of Ireland Act represented an old-fashioned imperialist mindset and should be got rid of.
But there is another side to this matter. As David Trimble pointed out in an article in 1994, the controversial part of the Government of Ireland Act (section 75) is merely a 'saving clause' designed to assert Westminster's residual authority over a devolved Belfast
parliament.(7) The purpose is not to make an imperialist British claim over Northern Ireland against the wish of a majority of its citizens. The key legislation establishing the union is anyway the Act of Union of 1800: this Act, as Trimble has stressed, remains in force.
The fact that David Trimble has long taken a relatively relaxed view of
the significance of the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 has always carried
with it the implication that he might trade it as part of a deal bringing
changes to the Irish Constitution of 1937 - even though during the negotiation
he often took a publicly rigid strand as, for example, when he published
in March 1999 (8) an article in the Sunday Independent apparently, but not
actually, exhibiting a reluctance to accept change in this area. |
