As reports trickled through that Arlene Foster was on the cusp of being defenestrated as DUP leader there was, initially at least, a slight sense of confusion: how does the process of removing a leader in the DUP actually work? And, by extension, how would a new leader be selected? In response, one former DUP special advisor took it upon themselves to outline the dry technicalities of the party’s rulebook on Twitter. 

Such confusion or, put another way, lack of awareness, perhaps speaks to two remarkable, and related, features of the DUP. Firstly, the exceptional nature of the leadership challenge itself and, secondly, the party’s historic obsession with ensuring difficult decisions are taken behind closed doors.

New territory

On the first feature, leadership change in the DUP is nothing new. Peter Robinson replaced Ian Paisley Sr in 2008, and Foster succeeded Robinson in 2015. Those changes were, however, virtual coronations; with a potential field of successors whittled down to one candidate, who was then anointed in a carefully stage-managed, drama-free event. As such, the formal rules governing leadership selection, to all intents and purposes, did not matter and so did not feature in too many discussions in media circles or around dinner tables. 

What is exceptional about the challenge to Foster’s position is that the formal process is now being more acutely tested and potentially utilised. Indeed, if a competitive leadership contest emerges, with more than one candidate throwing their hat into the ring, then those rules will come under greater scrutiny and the exceptionalism of the DUP, as an organisation, will become all the starker. 

The DUP is one of the few remaining parties in the Western world which limits the selection of a leader solely to its elected representatives. A tiny electoral college made up of the party’s MLAs and MPs will, then, appoint the next DUP leader and, most likely, the next First Minister of Northern Ireland. Given much of the opposition to Foster’s leadership is reported to come from the party’s rank-and-file membership, they will be granted no actual say in the selection of her replacement. 

The rules governing leadership selection in the DUP have, therefore, largely gathered dust for the 50 years of its existence. Much of what we will see play out over the coming days and weeks will be uncharted waters for the party. 

Exposing internal divisions

The previous instances of leadership change in the DUP also speak to the extent to which the party has been able to control sensitive – and potentially damaging – internal decisions. It is a truism that voters look dimly upon divided parties. Competitive leadership contests can, by their nature, represent moments for such division to be both displayed and exacerbated. Rival candidates, in their jostling for position and in the act of persuasion, can air much of a party’s dirty linen or reveal the ideological tensions that exist and which the public are generally unaware. For the standout example of this, look no further than the DUP’s direct electoral rival, the Ulster Unionist Party. Indeed, the UUP has, for the DUP, served as the model of how not to do these things. 

The DUP could soon find itself, therefore, in not just fresh waters but uncomfortable ones. An open and competitive contest jars with the party’s long-held disposition to keep such tricky matters behind closed doors and present any decision as one taken from a position of strength and unity rather than weakness and division. Such optics take on even greater importance with an Assembly election set for next Spring. 

Indeed, the attempted removal of Foster speaks to a larger organisational problem for the DUP. That is the extent to which the party centre – including not just the leader but its party officer team – has seemingly lost its traditionally iron-like grip on the party machine, including assuaging the concerns of grassroots members and ensuring discipline amongst the ranks of its elected representatives. With reports that many members, MLAs and local councillors wish to see several other high-profile leadership figures removed along with Foster, how and whether the party centre re-establishes such control and discipline will be worth watching, beyond the headline-grabbing event of selecting a new leader.

Then what?

Looking beyond the potential consequences of an unprecedented leadership contest, a change of DUP leader is interesting for a number of other reasons. Firstly, leadership transitions are often framed by parties as symbolising change. But what does change actually look like and mean in the case of the DUP? Will it be a regressive or progressive step? And, perhaps more importantly, what can Foster’s successor actually change? 

The legislation on the cultural-moral issues that have so perturbed those calling for her head will be next to impossible to overturn. The Northern Ireland Protocol, which for many within and outside the party is the source of the current ructions, enjoys the support of a powerful coalition of forces and is in place thanks to a suite of political, legal and territorial realities. So many of the factors that explain the challenge to Foster, then, largely lie outside the control of the DUP and therefore any future incumbent. It is very likely then that a change of leader will not deliver the salve and salvation that many within the party undoubtedly hope it will.

Finally, party leaders have to do a lot of the heavy-lifting in a power-sharing democracy. In a crude sense, they form the ‘elite cartel’ upon which the whole enterprise hangs. And here we come face-to-face with the representative conundrum confronting the DUP in the present moment. A change of leader might be enough to placate those in the party who want a stauncher, more uncompromising defender of unionist interests but the election of such a figure makes compromise within the Executive and therefore the effective functioning of devolution in Northern Ireland all the more unlikely. 

The DUP is, it seems, in a Chinese finger trap, largely of its own making. Satisfy the base or make the institutions work? How and whether it extracts itself from that bind will be just as intriguing as the process of selecting the individual tasked with that challenge.