In one of its lesser-known creations, the Good Friday Agreement created a 60-strong Civic Forum that was to advise Northern Ireland’s political leadership on social, economic and cultural issues. It began in 2000. It met just 12 times.
The body, which drew its membership from business, trades unions and the voluntary world, was dissolved in 2002 when the Stormont institutions fell. Years later, politicians talked the talk about bringing it back. In truth, they had no interest in its return.
Today, there is a need for exactly such a body, but, perhaps, not even just one of them that would draw on views across the spectrum of Northern Ireland’s society on life there, but also on the North/South relationship and the relationship between Ireland and Britain.
Currently, the political environment of Northern Ireland is a hindrance rather than a help to such positive change. Indeed, the measure of advancement by a significant minority is still valued by the extent to which it disadvantages and so devalues opponents.
My Belfast friends can buy a house and start a family more easily than those in Dublin
‘I would do it again in a heartbeat’: former RUC officer consigned to a wheelchair by the IRA on serving in the Troubles
The rebel women of the North during the War of Independence: hiding rifles in the kitchen and ammunition under bedclothes
The real danger now is of Sinn Féin quiet quitting in Northern Ireland
If such a perspective dominates, continues, or succeeds then there is little chance of a better society for all. But in such an environment how can positive relationships realistically develop and progressive change take place?
Clearly this is highly unlikely. If that is so, perhaps we would be well advised to look beyond the current political system to other forms of influence, and other forms of opinions that could help to deliver much-needed progress.
Perhaps one should not be too surprised that the now Westminster MP, Jim Allister chose the name Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) when he was setting up his organisation in 2007, since it was formed as a protest movement.
Then, and now, its purpose is to ‘restore the Union’. The TUV prioritises resistance rather than reform as its essential purpose. Unsurprisingly, in the party’s 2024 manifesto a mention of relations with Dublin is notable by its absence and the focus is on threats to the unionist way of life.
The TUV emphasis is not based upon on a collaborative or pragmatic motivation but the preservation and continuation of identity. Here, the stress is on strength and principle as proof of integrity and trustworthiness, the measure of which is immovability, sameness and inertia.
Though this outlook may be of attraction to those who believe the past can be protected and defended it nevertheless reveals the fundamental flaw that runs through much of political unionism: a failure to grasp the value of change and collaboration as drivers of progress.
The TUV may represent a minority of unionism but as an example of modern unionist political expression its message remains remarkably consistent with a general inability to articulate hope and confidence about a different and better future.
In that sense, the party does indeed advocate for the traditional.
Such pessimism is not without wider context, however. Northern Ireland has so far not had a decade-long uninterrupted period of government since 1998. Equally, the first-past-the-post voting system created at St Andrews has entrenched conflictive and divisive positions.
Given all of that it is hardly surprising that the negative messages so frequent in the politics of Northern Ireland continues to have resonance and retain appeal. Such messages reflect expectations of dismissal and intransigence.
The Northern Ireland Civic Forum agreed in the Good Friday Agreement brought together 60 representatives of civil society to debate social and political concerns. In so doing, it offered a basis for collaboration and consensus outside politics, enabling wider consideration on points of contention.
The Civic Forum, envisaged by the Good Friday Agreement, ran for just two years from 2000 to 2002 before it was dissolved, never to be revived. Interestingly, the idea was proposed again in 2001, this time to better North-South relations. Again, it got nowhere.
The thinking at the time from those supporting the idea was that it would represent the complexity of social and political relationships running through all three strands of the agreement – North/South, East/West and within Northern Ireland.
Civic forums probing each of these relationships, separately and together, could converge to challenge political obstruction and build better relationships now across Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and the Republic and between the Republic and the UK.
Significantly, Sinn Féin, along with the Democratic Unionist Party, was happy to see the dissolution of the civic forum, viewing it as an unnecessary hindrance to power and control just as much as their unionist political partners did.
In the case of both, the politics of division is preferable to a coalition-type political representation. But, given the divisions that continue to exist in Northern Ireland, the case for greater structures of co-operation remains compelling.
Unable to think in terms of cross-community needs in ways that reflect the values of citizenship and a common good, political change in Northern Ireland is held back by an emphasis on difference rather than commonality, by irreconcilability rather than compatibility.
Closer interaction through three separate but interrelated forums offers the potential to address disagreements and differences in ways unavailable through a divisive political domain that works against rather than for the collective interest.
Positive work in relation to sectarianism, diversity, reconciliation, public service and political responsibility is urgently needed and a civic forum can contribute to progress in ways the divided politics of Northern Ireland cannot.
The contest between arguments surrounding the United Ireland or United Kingdom debates dominates much political decision-making and posturing in Northern Ireland and it is hard to envisage progress when national identity concerns frames and contains discussion.
A focus on issues less bogged down by the one-sidedness of territorial claims requires dealing with mutual concerns constructively, offering a way to expand debate beyond the narrow confines of political zero-sum games.
While for Sinn Féin tradition is prioritised through the new language of transformation (agreed, shared, mutual, multicultural) for many unionists such transformation is in contradiction with tradition. Given that this terrain is so strongly articulated by republicans, many unionists fear it and recoil from it.
Obviously, this indicates the strength of division. It also highlights the need for alternatives. If embraced, a new approach to open debates in ways directly relatable to everyday problems offering tangible and demonstrable solutions could render relations less toxic.
New civic bodies able to boost co-operation and relations can circumvent the predictable hostilities and antagonisms of politics. In such a climate politics is too important to be left to politicians. It is now time to bring the people back into play to build for all.
Graham Spencer is Professor of Social and Political Conflict at the University of Portsmouth