Equality
by Christopher McCrudden
From Human Rights, Equality and Democratic Renewal In Northern Ireland edited by Colin Harvey
Hart Publishing 2001
A preliminary assessment
Perhaps at this point we should remind ourselves why mainstreaming is important. How does mainstreaming differ from traditional anti- discrimination approaches? The most important difference is that it concentrates on achieving equality rather than simply eliminating discrimination. Mainstreaming involves government proactively taking equality in to account. It is intended to be anticipatory rather than retrospective, to be extensively participatory rather than limited to small groups of the knowledgeable, and to be integrated into activities of those involved in policy making. The motivation for mainstreaming lies in the realisation that unless special attention is paid to equality in policy making, it becomes too easily sidelined and submerged in the day-to-day concerns of policy maker who do not view equality as central to their concerns. Mainstreaming, by definition, attempts to address this problem by requiring all government departments to engage directly with equality issues.
Mainstreaming will have other, more indirect, consequences. One of these is to encourage greater transparency in decision making since it necessitates defining the likely impact of policies at an earlier stage of policy making, more systematically and to greater extent than is usually contemplated. It will also encourage greater participation in policy making. Unlike more traditional mechanisms of consultation, mainstreaming as now to be practised in Northern Ireland requires impact assessments of a degree of specificity that establishes a clear agenda for discussion between policy makers and those most affected. In combination, impact assessment and participation will develop links between government and "civil society", encouraging greater participation in decision making by marginal groups and lessening the democratic deficit.
There are dangers and limitations to mainstreaming. In particular, it may result in the over-fragmentation of equality policy, especially if it becomes an alternative to traditional anti-discrimination and other equality mechanisms. If all public bodies have responsibility for equality, there is a danger that none will regard it as an important part of their function. There is a need, therefore for some centralised responsibility within government to ensure that mainstreaming is consistently applied, according to common standards. Nor should one overlook the fact that building such a requirement into civil service decision making will require considerable cultural change. Apart from practical issues, there are problems of departmental exclusiveness and collective responsibility. Mainstreaming may well cut across the working practices, and potentially the ethos, of civil service bureaucracy. The dismal experienced in Northern Ireland of non-statutory PAFT approach to mainstreaming before the reforms introduced by the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is eloquent testimony to this.
The implication is that a strong political commitment to mainstreaming is absolutely crucial and must drive a new approach being taken by departments and other public bodies. But it means more than that. It means also that the legal status of mainstreaming needs to be considered. It is noticeable that many of the jurisdictions that have introduced mainstreaming have done so without according it any clear legal status. Mostly, mainstreaming has been introduced administratively by circular, without any formal legal underpinnings. At best, the status of mainstreaming in many countries is that of "soft law". The Northern Ireland experience points to the inadequacy of a "soft law" approach. Whether a "hard law" approach will be any more successful in Northern Ireland remains to be seen. It is to that issue that we now turn.
What are the prospects of the legal mainstreaming approach adopted in Northern
Ireland being effective? The provisions of the Act are promises, not reality.
They are a necessary part of the process of achieving substantive equality,
fairness and justice. But neither the provisions of the Agreement not the
Act itself delivers such change directly. This delivery will require political
will at all levels. The provisions of the Act, in other words, represent
the potential for change. The provisions will reframe the debate. But we
must ensure that change actually occurs, particularly in the area of greatest
disadvantage. |
