It seems the British government is coming round to the opinion that they should hold assembly elections in May. If so, good. It's about time. On the other hand it's hard to tell because the people saying that Tony Blair is so minded are the people who want elections. The DUP in particular sound as if they're trying to bounce the British administration in the north into elections.
Still, with the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Irish government and yes, the DUP too, all pressing for elections, to refuse would make it look as though preserving Trimble's political skin outweighed the merits of democracy, and few people would equate Trimble's survival with democracy. Besides, if elections were held up the UUP might suffer because the British cosseted them like an endangered species. It's never been an advantage in Irish politics to appear as the favourite of the British.
So far it's been the UUP's ambivalent attitude to elections which has led the British to waver. It was Trimble, conscious no doubt of his dismal record in elections, who first raised questions about a poll in May. It was his fears about DUP success that caused him to suggest running a divisive border poll simultaneously with an assembly election, even though that would launch the most sectarian election campaign imaginable. What did he care as long as he remained top unionist?
Who comes out on top in each community is an understandable anxiety in the main parties, but there are other reasons for holding elections here. Elections are snapshots. They show the state of play at a precise moment in political history. A family photo of the current assembly members, if you could get them all together for one, would be a record of the state of politics five years ago, not today. If elections are not held, assembly members will quickly cease to represent their voters.
Some have already done so. They have declared they will not run in any elections. Some have failed to be selected to run in the next elections. They are lame ducks. What would happen to them? Do they continue to be paid for doing nothing when they have effectively retired? When does payment for all assembly members stop? May, the answer should be, if there are no elections. When does the Irish government succeed in persuading the British government to hold elections, for indecision on the British side is the problem? In 2004 to coincide with the next European elections or wait until the next British election? Will it be calculated that the voters of the north should provide the 'correct' result by then?
This state of limbo happened before. In 1976 the awful Roy Mason kicked out the members of the Convention. Six years later some SDLP Convention members, in a desperate attempt to preserve some semblance of public representation, were still calling themselves 'constituency representatives'. Others had fallen by the wayside. Apart from John Hume, elected to the European parliament in 1979, the SDLP had no full-time public representatives. The mandate they claimed from 1975 was beginning to resemble that of members of the second Dail.
It mustn't happen again. Time moves on. It's pointless trying to hold onto a moment in 1998. People are ready for another election on the Agreement. Parties need renovated and the best way to do that is through an election, though of course that doesn't always happen. For example Paisley, approaching 80, will still cling on, his old man's voice piping higher and higher, his frame shrinking lower and lower. In the end of course, it's a matter for the voters whether or not they dump him.
Refusing to give the voters the option is the problem. Artificially trying to maintain the balance of forces in the north five years ago will cause so much frustration to build up that when the British finally deign to call an election the delay will pretty well guarantee the demise of parties which benefited from any postponement. If they think it's difficult now to get an executive up and running, what will it be like if an election is held up until the autumn or even worse, until next year?
At present, the vacillation of the British government about holding an election in May is contributing to growing political instability in the north.
It is self-evident that parties would adopt particular positions if they definitely knew there will be an election, positions which might be radically different from those they would adopt if there is to be no election.
Not knowing one way or the other means the two parties at the centre of the current impasse, Sinn Féin and the UUP, continue to hedge their bets.
Does that help negotiations?
