It is rather unfortunate for Dr Richard Haass that despite coming to Northern Ireland to chair talks on overcoming divisions on a series of controversial issues, his name provokes a new form of controversy in itself. ‘Shambolic’, ‘farcical’, and ‘pathetic’ are just some words that have been used to describe the failure (to date) of Northern Ireland’s governing parties to find agreement on the contentious issues of parading, flags and the past.

However, as several commentators have pointed out, the failure of the talks to produce agreement before the New Year can in no way be attributed to Dr Haass, or his vice-chair Professor Meghan O’Sullivan. After months of listening and countless hours trying to identify common ground between the five main parties’ positions, culminating in no fewer than seven draft agreements, the esteemed diplomat and Harvard professor have made an admirable effort for which we should be grateful.

But if the Haass-O’Sullivan effort, however admirable, has not yet produced any fundamental agreement, what is there to be grateful for? Many may ask such a sceptical question because we are naturally frustrated with the lack of any agreement to date, or perhaps equally frustrated by the claim that ‘progress has still been made, even if an agreement has not yet been reached’ – which sceptics tend to instantly dismiss as mere damage limitation.

The high-level, exclusive nature of the Haass talks has inevitably led to the focus on what the political parties have or have not been able to achieve. But this ignores what we as a society have achieved for ourselves.

I would argue that a frustrated backlash at the failure of our leaders to reach an agreement is in itself a positive development: it shows that an increasingly loud segment of society is yearning for more imaginative progress. In short, it seems that the attitudes of our leaders have not yet caught up with the attitudes of Northern Ireland at large.

As the Haass talks entered their final stage, the BBC published a poll conducted by IPSOS-MORI to show us what we really think. Unlike the talks themselves, however, these findings have received surprisingly little attention.

On the issue of flags, 33% support the Union flag being flown only on designated days, being backed by 32% of Protestants and 34% of Catholics. In other words, there is a remarkably strong degree of cross-cross-community support for this option. This is not present in the other options of flying the Union flag every day of the year (supported by 49% of Protestants and just 4% of Catholics), not flying it at all from public buildings (supported by 28% of Catholics and 2% of Protestants), or even those having no opinion (15% of Protestants and 32% of Catholics).

That’s not all. The figures show that in total nearly 60% either have no opinion on the matter of flags or support the flying of the Union flag on designated days. But yet it was the issue of flags above all others that saw the least progress and the most fundamental disagreement between the five main parties in the Haass talks.

When we consider the two Unionist parties’ insistence on flying the Union flag at Belfast City Hall for 365 days of the year, and Sinn Féin’s insistence on a choice between two flags (UK and Irish) or none at all, these sorts of absolutisms simply do not reflect the views of a significant majority in Northern Ireland who have moved beyond them to reach a more accommodating mindset.

Now we come to parading. This was an issue on which most agreement was supposedly found during negotiations. This is probably because whatever ‘concerns’ surrounded Parades Commission decisions in the first place, all parties knew full well that when it comes to contentious parades, some form of independent adjudicator is required. It is simply a question of that form.

What is fascinating, however, is the distribution of viewpoints within the Protestant community on the existing Parades Commission. Almost identical numbers wish to retain it, abolish it, or have no opinion on it (32%, 34% and 33% respectively). If the UUP and DUP both seek to represent the ‘PUL’ (Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist) community by insisting on replacing the Parades Commission with something else, they are pressing for something that 65% of Protestants do not see as necessary.

Finally, progress has also been made between the five main parties on dealing with the past. This is clearly an extremely sensitive area, as highlighted by the reaction to proposals by Attorney-General John Larkin that prosecution of Troubles-era offences should end. What is interesting about the IPSOS-MORI polling data is that a majority (56%) either agree with the Attorney-General or else have no opinion. This article is not the place in which to enter a debate on the merits or otherwise of the Larkin proposals, as to do so would require at least another article in itself. However, the polling results do provide us with one stark conclusion: the people of Northern Ireland have more complicated views than we might otherwise imagine.

These figures, of course, continue to point to many challenges that remain in our society. Indeed, I have often been speaking in terms of ‘majorities’, or at least significant minorities, in order to make a point. One of the problems in Northern Ireland, more-so than in most other societies, is that majority opinion in itself is not enough when dealing with many thorny issues. As the flags protests of 2012-2013 demonstrate, even when there was a democratic majority decision to fly the Union flag only on designated days, this prompted a vocal backlash on the streets. A powerful minority was able to grind Belfast to a halt.

The reluctance of Unionist parties in particular to adopt the Haass-O’Sullivan proposal is likely to stem from their fear of being criticised for ‘selling out’. But at the same time, they have been prepared to accept stirring the frustrations of a silent majority. It is a paradox, but one that can in part be resolved by members of this ‘silent majority’ to make their voice heard loud and clear at the ballot box.

Frustrated for now as many may be with the deep and protracted divisions that remain in our Executive, I refuse to believe it will always be like this. The Haass talks may not have produced conclusive agreement among our leaders, but they have taught us something about our society. The most significant division in Northern Irish politics today is not between Nationalist and Unionist. Rather, it is a division between those who still want to see politics as such, and those who want to strive beyond it.

For helping us come to realise this, I say thank you, Dr Haass.