Ian Paisley managed to just scrape past the numbers needed, a mere 444 votes short, to hold his seat and be readmitted to the DUP. Consequently, he was bold enough to make the ludicrous statement that he has garnered 90.6% of his constituency’s support. This may be considered a victory for him but it comes at a cost to the Union and to the citizens of Northern Ireland, in a time where people have become complacent and are losing faith in their political institutions.

The rules that have been put in place through the Recall of MPs Act were rigorously followed; frustratingly this meant that reporting was restrictive, leaving constituents’ voices and opinions going unheard or represented. Strikingly, the reaction in some political commentary has been to blame political parties for not campaigning in favour of the petition.  However, the role of parties in polarising the vote has had impacts on the voter turnout in the past causing upset and, I would argue, that their decisions should not be considered the main reason behind the numbers falling short this time around.

Furthermore, the rules governing any recall election perhaps do not adequately consider the post-conflict nature of society here, where sectarian politics inflame the constitutional question and continue to entrench citizens into identity politics for votes.  The DUP has continued an already divisive and isolationist ideology of protecting vulnerable and victimised people, which trust few beyond their group or even the very state they claim to serve. ​

Another dimension must be brought into the conversation: the generational divide among families. My own family is divided on who we support politically and what we feel is best is for Northern Ireland. When we found out Ian Paisley was facing a recall petition, there was no exception. ​When the petition letters came in, we could not agree on whether it was in the best interest of our community to support Mr Paisley or whether it was even safe to sign the petition.

My local voting centre was in the Joey Dunlop Leisure Centre. I had qualms in saying I signed the petition, but the decision to make my voice heard was necessary, regardless of divisions of what we thought. What struck me about the process was that it was a very public act. I was incredibly aware that other observers knew exactly why I was entering the voting station. One of the scrutineers (or poll-watcher) was even one of my former neighbours.

Just as I was so conscious, so were many others. I spoke to a number of people, many whom expressed concern as to being seen voting against ‘one of their own’, a sentiment which echoes the manner we used to police each other in the times of the Conflict. We are witnessing old sectarian lines, more prominent now than the last 20 years.

It is evident that reforms to the rules for the Recall Actare needed, especially to keep people anonymous and makes it possible for communities to be better represented. I can only hope future procedures are improved to make any recall process a more private matter, allowing constituents with the desire to make change to have their voices heard.

We as constituents have a responsibility too, and must take ownership of the government that belongs to us all – regardless of political ideology. To remain complacent and to only blame the other side will lead only to further and deeper divisions.

I believe Mr Paisley has done damage to my constituency, its people, and my home place. To say that he has the support of 90.6% of the people is simply untrue, and frankly disrespectful. Blaming political parties for any lack of campaigning does not justify or look to understand the many reasons as to why people did not use the petition to have their voice heard. Northern Ireland’s political elite is capitalising on the re-emergence on sectarian divisions and how it affects the community’s ability to hold their leaders accountable. We must ask how we can improve our political voting space so we can empower people again.

I can only be hopeful that change is happening around the kitchen table where families discuss the future they deserve and the leaders they desire. That young voters are able to set out what their core issues are and discuss what kind of Unionism they want to see, especially in light of this affair. There is still an opportunity for them to become engaged and make their case about how unionism needs to change and work towards building a better place for all.

The outcome, of course, depends on where we choose to go at these crossroads.