Having recently read the well-researched and fantastically posited book Why We Get the Wrong Politicians by Isabel Hardman, it led me to wonder whether a similar reflection could be applied to the Northern Irish political sphere.

In Hardman’s book, she argues that we get the wrong politicians due, in part, to the shortcomings of the Westminster parliamentary system itself. Hardman talks at length about the cost of becoming an elected MP at Westminster. Upon rumination, I am forced to conclude that, while Hardman’s analysis sits well on a reading of Westminster politics generally, some of the factors that she considers just do not feature when it comes to our politicians at Westminster or Stormont. In fact, Northern Ireland does not get a mention in the book.

 

Why We Get the Wrong Politicians by Isabel Hardman

Tribalism

The underlying feature that makes the difference is the vehemently tribal nature of Northern Irish politics.

Tribalism instantly limits the pool of talent competing for a voter’s precious “X” when it comes to filling in the ballot paper. It reduces the pressure on those who decide to run for political office because they aren’t competing against the full spectrum of candidates who would otherwise be interested in standing.

This heavily reduced competition means that the election is all-but-over before election day itself. Consider the case of a candidate selected to stand for a party that’s already far and away ahead of any other in that constituency. In theory, the candidate can pop the champagne cork the minute their party chooses them, not when the voters do. The feature of tribalism in Northern Irish voting attitudes has turned some constituency elections into a coronation rather than a contest. This ultimately nobbles away at the quality of politicians that we produce.

Where Hardman does mention a small group of party members choosing the winning candidate, she does so only to show how unrepresentative political candidates can be of the wider nation. Hardman’s analysis does not push the argument further by showing the impact this can have on seats which are unwaveringly the fiefdom of one party or another.

Tribalism means that the most effective campaigning tool for a dominant party at election time is using the “other” as a political punch bag. Effective as this is, if one takes tribalism out of the equation, a candidate’s campaign would be more positive about what they would change rather than how awful it would be to lose the seat to those dreaded “others”. How refreshing.

The underlying feature of this tribalism is the siege-like fear that large numbers of the Northern Irish electorate suffer from. The view that a vote for any other than the main unionist/nationalist party in any given constituency might cede ground to the ‘other side’.

This element of tribalism gifts potential candidates a lot of breathing room and a lack of accountability. Should we be surprised if and when they make ill-judged snap decisions once they are up at Stormont as an MLA? There is no real focus, or consequences, placed on their behaviour.

This lack of accountability simply does not exist when it comes to Westminster elections, where tribalism is less of an issue and many constituencies swing between Conservative and Labour MPs with each passing general election. This ever-possible swing comes from a focus on the individual politician’s behaviour, creating a fear which puts pressure on an MP to be better, work harder and think more carefully about their decisions. Or, at the very least, it reduces the arrogance that we have seen from some MLAs and MPs in light of bad choices.

We get the politicians that we do in Northern Ireland, because there is less focus on the individual candidate and more on the flag that the candidate has been selected to wave. This means that there is an inevitable reduction in the quality of candidate that our political elections produce. Arguably, this is to the detriment of our own political future.

 

An explanation?

On a side note, this underlying tribalism reducing the talent pool could possibly provide some sort of explanation as to why the RHI Inquiry showed special advisors to have more influence over the levers of power than the politicians themselves.

If politicians felt more personally accountable to their voters, would they really allow themselves to be arrogantly steamrolled by their special advisers? They would have to defend their positions in a much more meaningful way, making them less likely to kowtow in the face of confident unelected professional advisors.

After all, in the world of Stormont politics, with no real competition in a constituency election and no real opposition to challenge an MLA from one of the dominant parties, the first real opposition that an elected MLA might face will likely be internal and fought behind closed doors.

Admittedly this is speculation, but surely politicians must feel like there will be consequences for unacceptable behaviour. Elections are not always capable of delivering this check.

 

No obvious solutions

I do not claim to have a solution to the above problem. There is no obvious fix given the fact that political stability in Northern Ireland is finely balanced. Careless changes could lead to catastrophic results. However, in medical terms, identifying and diagnosing a problem is but the first step in the process of proper treatment.

Ultimately, as time moves on and if Northern Irish society becomes less partisan, this problem will lessen. However, I do wonder if there is anything that can be done in the meantime that does not involve wishing away a huge swathe of the current political community and voters’ legitimate preferences.

 

Is Northern Ireland all that different?

I happily concede that English, Scottish and Welsh constituency battles have their own tribal imperfections.

Take the English constituency of Aldershot. Created in 1918, the six MPs that have all held this seat for the last 101 years have all been Conservative. Not the only one of its kind, Aldershot shows that safe seats exist outside of Northern Ireland and, in this sense, such accusations of a coronation rather than an election are equally applicable. Of course, tribalism is a problem wherever it exists.

 

Nevertheless…

Tribalism is a much more common occurrence in Northern Irish constituencies than it is in the rest of the UK. Of the 18 Northern Irish constituencies that send an MP to Westminster, 11 out of 18 (61%) have never changed hands between unionist and nationalist, and of the remaining 7, only 2 (11%) could be described as being a fiercely fought contest. The other 5 (28%) changed hands between unionist and nationalist most recently 22 years ago. These 5 constituencies have not crossed that same divide since. The impact of this is less apparent when it comes to Stormont politics due to the multi-seated constituencies, but safe seats are no less prevalent in these elections.

Tribalism is the rule rather than the exception in Northern Ireland. It permeates our politics in a truly unrivalled fashion. It can lead to unaccountability and poor decision making. Alas, Northern Ireland does not enjoy any meaningful mention in the book at all.