Fortnight Publications Ltd.

The Whole Truth about Power SharingAuthor(s): John HarbinsonSource: Fortnight, No. 101 (Mar. 21, 1975), pp. 7-8Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25545390 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 07:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:41:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FRIDAY 21st MARCH 1975/7_

The Whole Truth about Power Sharing The article in the edition of February 21

1975 was described as giving 'the whole truth about power-sharing'. Far from

being the whole truth, is not even the near truth about power-sharing, a

phrase which the article does not define and which is not used in the

Government's Discussion Paper. I should like to make two comments on

this article. First on the matter of content.

The article is not the whole truth about Holland because it nowhere

explains that that country has deeper and more intractable religious division than any other Western democrac v. Nor

does it explain how the com pi cat ed electoral system used ensures parlia

mentary representation to a total of some 23 political parties, thus making a

coalition not only desirable but abso

lutely essential if the business of

government is to be carried on. The article is not the whole truth

about Belgium because it does not

explain that while the primary division in the country is linguistic, this division

goes much deeper and extends as far as areas of culture and national sympathy. Nor does it explain that the equal representation system can produce a

very long delay in forming an adminis tration after a general election. The result of this, and the existence of two

Ministers in charge of a Department, can either result in the gradual transfer of power to civil servants (an undesirable situation in any democracy), or adminis trative chaos. Again, as in Holland, no reference is made to the complex electoral system required to fulfil the _ constitutional requirements for guaran teeing the representation of each

community. The article does not tell the whole

truth about the problem of the Sudeten Germans, although it is slightly more accurate than the previous two. However

the influence of Hitler's interference, and the degree to which the Germans in Sudetenland failed to involve themselves in the new Czechoslovakia are not

adequately discussed to allow any meaningful comparison with Northern

Ireland to be made, if indeed one could be made.

Finally, on this point, the article does not tell the whole truth about Cyprus.

While I would agree with the general analysis, it again fails to take account of the external influences at work, influ ences which had a considerable bearing on recent events in that unhappy island.

The introduction to this article states that the Government's Discussion Paper

A Little Bit More

John Harbinson criticises j the Fortnight analysis of !

success and failure of

power-sharing in four j countries and argues for a | division of power between the executive and elected

representatives.

is ^inadequate and one-sided". While I

agree that the document contains much that is irrelevant it only purported to show how some countries have come to

terms with a divided community and created stable political institutions. As an aid to understanding it made a

rational contribution to what is often an

irrational discussion in local political circles.

My second comment on the article is that it fails to define, even in the loosest terms, what its author understands as

power-sharing. There is a growing body of opinion among political scientists and commentators which would argue that the real problem in modern democracies is not the conflict between a governing

Dr John Harbinson is author of a recent book on The Unionist Party, and a lecturer at the College of Business Studies.

body and an opposition, but the conflict between the Government (Cabinet, Executive or whatever) and Parliament. More and more power is being concen trated in fewer and fewer hands, and as a result less and less power belongs to the

people and their representatives. Real

power-sharing, therefore, lies in giving power, not to a cabinet or executive (even

in coalition) but to the people. One theory for giving sovereignty to

the people leads to the creation of the

one-party, collectivist state. I would not consider this a possibility for one moment. To me the best method yet devised is that of representative govern ment, but it is not necessary to the future

peace and prosperity of Ulster that this must be a replica of Westminster. Indeed I would suggest that the

particular institutions which suit Britain are wholly inappropriate to this Province

just as they have proved inappropriate to other areas of what was formerly the British Empire. What is required for Ulster at this moment is therefore a

system of representative government which will overcome the defects of British democracy, take into considera tion the rights of minorities (both

Catholic and Protestant), and create institutions whereby power, rather than

being concentrated in cliques, is diffused and therefore shared in a

meaningful way.

Such a sharing of power with the

people is essential because of the inherent weaknesses in British democ

racy. These may be summarised as

follows. First, a voting system (the single member, simple majority system) which could only result in a return to one-party rule in Ulster, a major contributory factor to our present troubles. Second,

the complexity of modern government, and the economic and social problems with which we are faced, make it

impossible for even the most intelligent public representative to fully compre hend the needs of the people. Third, the second weakness leads to an undue reli

ance on a bureaucracy which carries no

responsibility to the people. Fourth, it

encourages a slavish following of the

party line, often when that line is at variance with the interests of the repre sentative's constituents. And this, finally leads to a credibility gap between the elected and the electorate. The voice of the people is heard once in every four or

five years, but between elections the voice of the people is muted or distorted to suit personal or party interest.

The major question, of course, is how is power to be shared between people

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:41:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

_ 8/FORTNIGHT mamm?m?wmmmm i i ??wm??^??wmm?w^mmmmmm?mmm?wmmmmmmmmmmmm?mm??mmmmwmm?? ? ?? mm-????>??>??? ?>???i?.??-??._.__?

and their representatives, between the

governed and the government. In our

particular situation a number of innovations might help. The first we

have already taken, namely the intro duction of proportional representation which may help to create a coalition

government. The next step would be to

separate the Executive from Parliament.

This is done in many countries and means ministers introduce their legisla tion or answer questions but do not take

part in debates and do not vote. The

parliamentary struggle then becomes one between the government and the

representatives of the governed, and in

the coalition situation there is no blind

following of the party line. If a repre sentative continually fails to put the interests of his people first, the 'power of recall' could be introduced. This is a

device whereby a given number of electors, by simply signing a petition, can dismiss a representative without

waiting until a general election. It has a

chastening effect, and could conceivably be used by loyalist working-class organisations who have not been very well served in the past. Finally, in this

context, there could be much greater use made ofthe referendum, which is simply a blocking mechanism given to the

people and a protection for minority interests.

But minority rights in the Ulster situation require more institutionalised

protection. This would almost certainly require a Bill of Rights comparable to that of the United States of America, and in addition a Constitutional Court. This latter would be the final arbiter of the rights of the people who would have

access to its services and seek from it redress of any contravention of their

rights. None of these suggestions undermine

democracy, in fact they strengthen it. None diffuse the decision-making pro cess?and someone has to ultimately take decisions. None undermine the

political parties and the policies they would wish to advocate. What they do is achieve a real sharing of power with the

people. Once this is achieved we will be on the road to a more stable society and the acceptance by the whole community of political institutions which serve the

people. This is not the whole truth about

power-sharing it is a slightly more honest attempt to define that nebulous term than the article of your anonymous contributor.

SUBSCRIBE!

But don't take our word for it, These are some of the nicer things that have been said about Fortnight: Fortnight, that excellent magazine which has survived shot, shell and printers. (Irish Times 14/3/72) Fortnight, the excellent Belfast news magazine.

(Simon Hoggart, The Guardian 18/10/73) Fortnight magazine, bravely subtitled 'an independent review for Northern Ireland'.. . Together the co-editors have managed to

keep their cool while the passions of conflict have raged all round them. (Irish Press Awards 1973, Hibernia 10/1/74)

I have found your magazine to be the most informative and honest source available on the North and the Northern mind.

(Extract from a subscriber's letter)

SUBSCRIPTION RATES Please fill in coupon below and post to:

U.K. and Republic of Ireland_?3.50 Fortnight Publications Ltd.

Europe ?4 50 15 James Street South,

America (Air Mail)' \\\'.\\\\\\\\ ?5!oO Belfast BT27G A. Tel. (0232)20167 \\

^Hst/*a,if & New Zea,anc*.?5.50 Name

(Air Mail) ?! Other Rates on request Address. I

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:41:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions