Overview: Victory for the DUP was the outcome Ahern and Blair feared,writes Frank Millar, London Editor
Mr Bertie Ahern determined there should be an election in Northern Ireland though he feared the result would be a mess.
He had his way and has hardly been surprised. In the tussle with Mr David Trimble it was the Taoiseach who prevailed with the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair. But there will be little consolation for Mr Ahern in the knowledge that - in Ulster Unionist eyes, at least - he and Mr Blair are equally to blame as they find the political landscape transformed, the Belfast Agreement paralysed and a hard political frost descending.
Both premiers have enjoyed a largely uncritical press on this issue because of their remarkable commitment to the quest for peace and stability. However, Mr Blair faces harsh questions about his decision to cancel the election in April because there was no prospect of a power-sharing administration resulting from it and his subsequent decision to proceed in bleak November when the chances were no higher, and arguably less.
Mr Ahern, likewise, has failed to explain why he did not intervene and halt the process when he knew about the problem of "transparency" over IRA decommissioning which left Mr Trimble to pull the plug and fight the election on the back of a failed negotiation with Sinn Féin.
All that is history now, of course. Yet it is relevant to the inquest which will surely follow the eclipse of the North's centre parties, and necessary to record in any event before the political establishments in London and Dublin start blaming the electorate for delivering the wrong result.
Certainly the two governments will be tempted to "spin" away what has happened and suggest nothing much is changed in the underlying state of Northern opinion. They would be wise to resist. The facts are the facts. Mr Gerry Adams has sounded the death-knell for Mr Mark Durkan's once proud SDLP, while the Rev Ian Paisley commands the unionist majority. The peoples of Northern Ireland have spoken and will expect their verdicts to be respected.
That would appear axiomatic in any democratic society. However, while officially denied, there are recurring signs that some senior figures in Whitehall are prepared to consider a change in the Assembly's cross-community voting rules to bypass the unionist "rejectionists" and empower the pro-agreement majority represented by the other parties.
This would require the compliance of the minority unionist bloc currently led by Mr Trimble. It would also require a fundamental change to the terms of the Belfast Agreement, which in turn would flatly contradict the insistence of Mr Blair and Mr Ahern that there can be no renegotiation as demanded by the DUP.
Both men might feel themselves justified in such a course of action if, after allowing a suitable period in which to test the DUP's commitment, they conclude that Dr Paisley's party cannot deliver even the basic levels of co-operation necessary for any form of devolved government to function.
However, it would be a dangerous step, showing contempt for the electorate and almost certainly increasing the alienation of the unionist majority whose assent the British have previously considered essential to stability in Northern Ireland.
It would also mark the denial of Mr John Hume's dictum that majoritarianism does not work in a divided society. And it is far from clear that nationalists or republicans would be comfortable with such a stratagem.
Former Labour Northern Ireland spokesman, Mr Kevin McNamara, told The Irish Times last night: "Once you go back to majoritarianism you re-create all the problems you had in the first place. Anything which is not acceptable to the majority party in either community will violate the principle of dual consent. Go away from that and you're in real difficulty."
Mr Trimble is already proffering another way out, by means of another election. And again, the British government might be tempted. However, the risk is that by inviting the electorate to change its mind they might rather take the opportunity to reinforce their original decision.
Moreover, such a strategy would require final closure of the internal Ulster Unionist battle, the banishment of Mr Jeffrey Donaldson and his dissident colleagues and the credible relaunch of the UUP as an unambiguously pro-agreement force.
This may be what Mr Trimble now intends. Mr Donaldson certainly intends no let-up in their now deeply personal battle. The Lagan Valley MP expects Sir Reg Empey and other pro-agreement colleagues previously loyal to Mr Trimble to come clean about an alternative leadership.
At the same time he and at least four colleagues are expected to effectively coalesce with the DUP, so giving the anti-agreement bloc a projected 36-23 margin of advantage in the still suspended Assembly. While unwilling (and unable yet) to rule him out, the British government's fear is that others will sense the shifting balance of unionist power, follow Mr Donaldson and finally break Mr Trimble's leadership.
In such circumstances - and for a while at least - that will surely incline them to play for time and trust to the "process". After all, it took 18 months of process to have the executive established after the 1998 election. And the peace has survived more than 12 months of the same since the fourth suspension in October last year.
One shrewd tactician suggested last night that the DUP will certainly want to play things along, its new priority to consolidate this victory in the general election barely 18 months away, with the question of "the deal" deferred until after that.
Will the British and Irish governments and Sinn Féin be prepared to wait that long? Will they for that matter have any choice? Assuming there can be no resumption of the IRA's war - in which case no deal anyhow - why not press ahead with Direct Rule augmented by the Anglo-Irish Agreement while waiting for Dr Paisley and his party to accommodate themselves to the realities of any settlement which, as they have acknowledged, requires the support of the majority of both communities?
As the undisputed leader of the minority community, Mr Adams yesterday observed that the DUP's position today is that of Mr Trimble's party just six years ago. The DUP wants devolution and it knows the republicans aren't going away. Dr Paisley has shown himself a successful leader of the opposition.
The question now is whether he can ever be anything more than that. All past form suggests the answer will come in the form of that word Dr Paisley has made his own.
However, the irony is that - should he surprise everyone with a Yes - it would be at an infinitely higher price than Mr Adams was ever prepared to pay for Mr Trimble.