Another Stormont talks process has ended in dismal failure. Much of the immediate reaction has been laying the blame on the DUP. Whilst I thoroughly oppose the DUP’s position on most issues, I can’t help but feel that this criticism is unfair.

It is true that it was Arlene Foster who first announced that the talks were dead, but it was not the DUP who killed the deal. Rather, it was public outcry amongst the party’s support base.

In the past couple of weeks much was made by political commentators of the fact that a deal was unlikely as neither the DUP or Sinn Féin had adequately prepared their base for a compromise. Commentator’s predictions are notoriously hit and miss, but on this occasion, they were right on target.

The senior figures in the DUP who formed the negotiating team had come to a compromise on issues like marriage equality and an Acht na Gaeilge with Sinn Féin, and for that they should be commended.

The fact that the deal didn’t hold is due to the secretive nature of the process. Indeed, had the terms of the deal been more favourable to the DUP, the situation would remain unchanged, with Sinn Féin unable to sell it to grassroots republicans.

The DUP and Sinn Féin are ultimately responsible for encouraging this hard-line attitude in their grassroots, but there is little point spending time arguing about that if we want to move forward.

Instead, the most recent failure highlights an inherent problem with the approach that has been prevalent over the past year. There is a significant democratic deficit in allowing a very select group of people at the top of two political parties to continually rewrite the Good Friday Agreement.

The most effective way to review, revitalise and reform the Agreement is through participative democracy such as a citizens’ assembly, as has been discussed elsewhere on this site.

This approach, followed by a confirmatory referendum, remains the best hope for ending the constant cycle of crises, talks and agreements that punctuate our politics.

However, this process would take time and political buy-in. Currently, it lacks the support of most politicians in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State, the DUP and Sinn Féin evidently prefer an endless cycle of unproductive talks, conducted in such secrecy that any positive conclusions shock the parties’ core bases to such an extent that the process inevitably collapses in on itself.

If we must insist this approach, then some sort democratic accountability must be introduced to give the process legitimacy and credibility.

Earlier in the week, during the brief period of hope where it looked like an improbable compromise would be struck in the talks, I tweeted that an Assembly election should be held to confirm the deal.

An election would have been a far from ideal solution. It must also have been alongside other steps, such as increased transparency about what has already been agreed in the talks process.

However, people must be given the opportunity to either support or reject changes to the way they are governed. Democratic principles demand this minimum standard. People must be free to reward or punish the politicians who make those changes.

It is only through closing this democratic deficit that we will reach a realistic and sustainable compromise in the long-term.

If we must persist with the talks model rather than a citizens’ assembly, it must include more openness and transparency and be focussed on the electorate, not the senior leadership of the DUP and Sinn Féin.

That means the Secretary of State must make it clear that there will be an Assembly election at the end of it. Only then, if the parties really do want an Assembly back, will they take a more consultative and democratic approach throughout the process, and only then will there be any hope of a lasting agreement.