The rising tide of Alliance voters will decide the future of Northern Ireland. Whichever side woos them successfully will “win”. It feels as though there is a deep truth in the reaction to this reality from other quarters. Unionism is retreating to an angry defensiveness, seeing the unaligned centre as a lost cause or even a treasonous opponent.
From nationalism, there are duplicitous attempts to bounce Alliance “off the fence” – not for selfish reasons, heaven forbid, but purely to play a responsible part in the debate on Irish unity.
Naturally, as a unionist, I prefer the flaws of my own tradition. At least they have the quality of being sincere.
A demand from SDLP leader Colum Eastwood for Alliance to take a constitutional position has been denounced as “disrespectful” by his Alliance counterpart Naomi Long, who equated it to her demanding Eastwood stop being a nationalist.
Nevertheless, the culmination of pressure and attention surrounding Alliance’s conference last weekend did drag out two significant announcements.
Long told the Irish News there should be clear criteria for holding a Border poll – a frequent demand from nationalist activists.
The Belfast Agreement leaves the decision up to the Northern Secretary, whenever they consider a nationalist win appears “likely”.
Trigger for a poll
There were good reasons for this ambiguity, especially from Alliance’s perspective. For years, it was assumed the trigger for a poll would be a nationalist assembly majority. The rise of the centre means that may never happen.
Specifying criteria, such as a nationalist plurality or electoral threshold, would squeeze the centre. Most Alliance supporters have a constitutional leaning, even if it is not their first priority. The party’s neutrality also nets it tactical votes and transfers. While all elections in Northern Ireland are Border polls to an extent, giving people tests to vote for would increase that extent.
Last year, the UK supreme court threw out an appeal for criteria, finding the Belfast Agreement had deliberately, legitimately and sensibly left it as a political decision. It is no small matter for Alliance to disagree.
Long’s second major announcement was that her party will come off the fence eventually.
“When we take a position, as undoubtedly will happen at some point in the future, it will be based on facts and evidence,” she told the BBC’s Sunday Politics.
This should be seen as repositioning against taking a position but it is remarkable Long felt the need to state a stance will be forthcoming, even as fresh spin on saying nothing. A party that stayed “agnostic on the union” throughout most of the Troubles could credibly claim it would remain so during a referendum, presenting facts and evidence for a free vote, for example.
Nor is a poll inevitable, despite Long’s implication it “undoubtedly will happen”.
The unity debate has grown in little except volume. Its proponents demand engagement from everyone else because they have no programme and want others to take the heat over difficult choices. Alliance has no responsibility to walk into this trap and shatter its coalition of voters, as taking a position would do. It could say: “This is your project, tell us your plan.” That is certainly what unionists should say – the awkward silence would be priceless.
The balancing act Alliance has sustained to achieve this deserves the time and space to see what wins it might bring us all
In her conference address, Long cast all this into the indefinite future. Perhaps the tiresome expression “sitting on the fence” should be replaced with “the Long finger”.
Reform of powersharing
Alliance’s constitutional project for the meantime is winning enough seats to compel reform of powersharing.
Due to the way Stormont’s rules were fiddled with in the 2006 St Andrews Agreement, Alliance would have to become the largest party to break the unionist and nationalist duopoly at the top. Long could not be deputy first minister, even leading the second largest party, unless “other” was also the second-largest designation – an unforeseeable prospect.
What Alliance is hoping for is a moral victory, where its size makes the rules look redundant or undemocratic. The reform it has in mind, as do many others, would be removing the requirement for the largest two parties to be in office.
Other ways May’s election could challenge the rules would be for the DUP and Sinn Féin to drop below a combined Assembly majority, or for the DUP to hold fewer than half unionism’s seats. Alliance growth could cause either outcome indirectly.
Opinion polls indicate none of this will occur: Sinn Féin and the DUP will remain the top two parties.
However, Alliance’s vision is the way the Belfast Agreement was meant to evolve, with a strengthening centre enabling normalisation. This was supposed to happen quickly – regular reviews of the rules were built in, beginning after three years.
Instead, it has taken two decades to create a growing centre, no longer led by the UUP and SDLP as originally imagined.
The balancing act Alliance has sustained to achieve this does deserve respect and the time and space to see what wins it might bring us all.