100 days of devolution
15 August 2007
An assessment by Jim Allister MEP:
We’ve now had our first 100 days of DUP/Sinn Fein-led government. It’s been most notable for what it hasn’t brought us, rather than what it has done. It certainly hasn’t brought us an end to the Army Council: the obscenity of clinging to an illegal Army Council and to government office at one and the same time continues. Nor, has it brought us a scintilla of further delivery by Sinn Fein. They can still cherry pick over policing: refusing to back other than “civic policing”, condemning lawful arrests in terrorist-related crimes, lambasting the attempt to extradite McAliskey to Germany, parade the streets of Belfast with replica rifles and the IRA can still threaten the life of a Crown witness, Mrs Zaetschek. Some progress! On the score sheet of what the DUP promised Sinn Fein would have to do and what Sinn Fein has actually done, it has been a clear win for recalcitrant republicanism.
Nor, have we seen sight of the generous financial package, which at one point was said even to be a pre-requisite to devolution. For all its bluster, the Executive has spectaculary failed to wring a meaningful package from the Treasury. Hence, recourse to the short-termism of selling off the family silver. Though begun by Gildernew at Crossnacreevy, we will see much more of this profligate expediency as the parties struggle to make good on persuasive promises on water rates and good times.
And what of the saving of academic selection? As the clock ticks down, do we seem any closer to undoing the educational terrorism of McGuinuess’ term as Education Minister?
But what of the quality of government? Could the most inept of direct rule ministers have made a greater mess of the Maze debacle? Personally, I find ministerial responses no better than under Direct Rule. Generally, the pattern continues of evasive replies drafted by civil servants and merely rubber-stamped by the Minister. The fact the minister is local hasn’t improved the quality of response. Evidence of hands on ministerial control of the civil service is hard to come by.
In one Department, namely OFMDFM, the situation has deteriorated rapidly. Under Direct Rule, because of the protection of the Whitehall Ministerial Code, an MP or MEP was assured of a timely response when an OFMDFM or other departmental issue was raised. Now, with the local ministerial code having removed those guarantees, you can wait months, even for an acknowledgement. Is this what accountable, responsive, transparent devolution is supposed to look like? If so, it’s not worth the candle!
The structure and nature of government is such that a basic democratic deficit lies at its heart, namely the absence of an opposition. Opposition plays a vital role in securing accountable government, but under the absurdity of D’hondt, with every significant party, guaranteed a perpetual place in government, we are devoid of that vital check and balance. Even Assembly Question Time is a limp experience, with few daring, or permitted, to rock the boat. Complacency, poor government and arrogance will increasingly result and hallmark our devolved institutions.
