Recently I came across an interesting wee briefing note from the Assembly’s Research and Library Services, called ‘From a Shared Future to Cohesion, Sharing and Integration: Developments in Good Relations Policy’, dated June 2009.The 5-page document begins with a description of the Shared Future consultation process, and quotes from the Shared Future document that ‘there is overwhelming support for a shared society.’ At this point it’s necessary to digress slightly, to quote an extract from what the consultation summary actually said:
The majority view concurred with the vision of a more shared and pluralist society, although many thought this was aspirational rather than achievable in the short term. There was an acknowledgement that due to the legacy of violence and continued political uncertainty, many could not endorse this aspiration. Although these views are legitimate(survey evidence suggests around 40% support existing segregation) and must be respected, they should not constrain those who strive for a more shared society. Some felt the two options were presented as alternative futures when they should in fact be ‘overlapping realities’ or sequential.
It would have been more accurate to describe the situation as ‘the majority aspire to a shared society’. I wonder if the misrepresentation of the consultation process may have helped to reduce the confidence of local politicians in the policy, which of course was introduced under Direct Rule. After all, we only have to look around us to see people who didn’t support a shared society in 2004 and haven’t changed their minds as a result of a three-year action plan. A realistic acknowledgement of the gap between hope and history might have been helpful. As might political leadership - then and now - to help close that gap.
However, it was inevitable that there would be problems with the policy once the Executive and Assembly returned to power with the two most ethnically polarised parties in charge. It’s not surprising that the new Programme for Government emphasised the economic rather than social costs of segregation, as that’s probably something on which we can all agree. The 2007 Deloitte report estimated the cost at £1.5bn – a report deemed so sensitive that David Ford had to make it public under a Freedom of Information request. The new PfG may not mention community relations or the Shared Future policy as such, but it did wish for ‘a shared and better future, based on tolerance and respect for cultural diversity’, which I personally was OK with, given that any policy document is only a means to an end.
But then, the PfG also made a commitment to replacing the Shared Future policy with a Cohesion, Sharing and Integration (CSI) policy. The jokes about CSI have all been made – but where is the policy? What’s holding it up? The briefing document left me feeling that we may be waiting a good while longer.
It would have been more accurate to describe the situation as ‘the majority aspire to a shared society’. I wonder if the misrepresentation of the consultation process may have helped to reduce the confidence of local politicians in the policy, which of course was introduced under Direct Rule. After all, we only have to look around us to see people who didn’t support a shared society in 2004 and haven’t changed their minds as a result of a three-year action plan. A realistic acknowledgement of the gap between hope and history might have been helpful. As might political leadership - then and now - to help close that gap.
However, it was inevitable that there would be problems with the policy once the Executive and Assembly returned to power with the two most ethnically polarised parties in charge. It’s not surprising that the new Programme for Government emphasised the economic rather than social costs of segregation, as that’s probably something on which we can all agree. The 2007 Deloitte report estimated the cost at £1.5bn – a report deemed so sensitive that David Ford had to make it public under a Freedom of Information request. The new PfG may not mention community relations or the Shared Future policy as such, but it did wish for ‘a shared and better future, based on tolerance and respect for cultural diversity’, which I personally was OK with, given that any policy document is only a means to an end.
But then, the PfG also made a commitment to replacing the Shared Future policy with a Cohesion, Sharing and Integration (CSI) policy. The jokes about CSI have all been made – but where is the policy? What’s holding it up? The briefing document left me feeling that we may be waiting a good while longer.
Apparently it’s been agreed that CSI will tackle both sectarianism and racism, rather than just sectarianism as did the Shared Future (with a separate Race Equality Strategy). But why incorporate only anti-sectarianism and anti-racism policies into the same document - why not include sexism, disablism, homophobia and ageism too? They are all detrimental to cohesion, sharing and integration.
Also it appears that district councils will take the lead, which connects well with the community planning responsibilities of the new councils but might imply that we’re not likely to see much activity before these councils are up and running. The briefing paper quite rightly asks whether government departments will also have targets, and whether the Actions Plans required by councils will be a statutory responsibility. Most importantly, where does this structure leave our MLAs? Will they be able to get away with ignoring CSI and blaming the councils for continuing problems? And, again, where will the leadership come from for cultural change?
The briefing paper also actually asks the question: ‘Does the Executive remain in favour of promoting sharing over separation?’ Well, if the Assembly’s Research and Library Services haven’t been able to find that out, what hope is there for the rest of us? The Assembly debate last January tells us only that Alliance and the SDLP want the policy to appear as soon as possible, while others’ attitudes can be summed up as ‘Give me CSI, but not yet’.
Of course no policy can on its own stop sectarianism and racism. But it’s still telling that our Executive isn’t prepared to lead from the front on this one. I suspect this policy hasn’t appeared because it goes to the heart of the differences between our politicians about the meanings of justice, identity and equality in our society. So don’t hold your breath.
Also it appears that district councils will take the lead, which connects well with the community planning responsibilities of the new councils but might imply that we’re not likely to see much activity before these councils are up and running. The briefing paper quite rightly asks whether government departments will also have targets, and whether the Actions Plans required by councils will be a statutory responsibility. Most importantly, where does this structure leave our MLAs? Will they be able to get away with ignoring CSI and blaming the councils for continuing problems? And, again, where will the leadership come from for cultural change?
The briefing paper also actually asks the question: ‘Does the Executive remain in favour of promoting sharing over separation?’ Well, if the Assembly’s Research and Library Services haven’t been able to find that out, what hope is there for the rest of us? The Assembly debate last January tells us only that Alliance and the SDLP want the policy to appear as soon as possible, while others’ attitudes can be summed up as ‘Give me CSI, but not yet’.
Of course no policy can on its own stop sectarianism and racism. But it’s still telling that our Executive isn’t prepared to lead from the front on this one. I suspect this policy hasn’t appeared because it goes to the heart of the differences between our politicians about the meanings of justice, identity and equality in our society. So don’t hold your breath.
7 comments:
Dear Jenny Muir...
Well writ and said. You just gave me a 'nutshell' description of Irish politics or a certain segment... I have read much about the shipping off of 'outsiders' and 'skinheads' wondering what is going on in Ireland. Having found your blog I'm more informed, and understanding where to search for more info. This a fine blog piece, one that asks good solid questions and to my point of view, would raise an awareness more fully. Good job. Glad to have found you.
ghb
Thanks Gwendolyn, do look at South Belfast Diary too for my earlier posts. I do think there's an increasing gap between what our politicians think is acceptable to their constituents and what people would actually accept. But people keep on voting for the same politicians!
I have. That's how I found you... one of our liberal blog sites over here had you in blogroll and I discovered you in the 'south' first. I'm happy to have found you!
I think politicians globally right now are at very polarized odds... the line in the sand is extremely visible! In USA we are in the midst of a terrible tussle over Health Care Reform. The violence, the rhetoric, the actual stupidity in riling up what seems the 'god crowd' and those who would are very obviously reacting with racist enmity, well, we're in the thick of it over here. Reading your posts and taking the moment to actually understand that this is more and more showing up on a global scale, well... I suppose the argument can be made that it's an eternal fight. Yet; I've noticed that behind the jump up reactors if you follow the $, you find many of the answers to 'why' politicians
are so polarized right now. Greed is a major element ... just seems to me. While the 'haves and have nots' are caught, as ever, in the crossfire. The idea of the "brotherhood of man" so worn thin through history, invites us to stand up and take an active part in taking care of our neighbors as well as we do ourselves. It's good health and mutual prosperity to do so in the end. The blending of cultures just IS. It's time for us to evolve beyond... but that's a personal opinion. Culture is my handmade business.
Ta for the reply Ms Muir! I anticipate reading your own press forward in all this.
Oh I see, didn't realise. I've been following the health care debate closely as it's very interesting to see our NHS used as an argument AGAINST socialised medicine. It's by no means ideal but certainly can be improved upon without losing the ethos of free care at the point of need.
So agreed!
The time is right for some movement on the Shared Future--now that the troubles are over there should be more of a push to get people to integrate better. It may happen without government action but I do think that a proactive approach is needed from government in getting more integrated housing and education and starting to think about bringing down peace walls.
Justin
I'm not against seeing public money going into Shared Future type initiatives, but the record so far isn't exactly a recommendation for this approach.
I think money needs to go into very practical projects through which community relations may improve as a byproduct. I did some research a few years ago on the Housing Executive's Central Housing Community Network, which is a strategic level forum covering all of NI, and I thought this was happening here, although it was not the intention of the forum at all.
The Housing Executive is trying some integrated housing schemes, but they are not in the really difficult areas and there are none at all in Belfast or Derry. There's a possibility integration would be happening without their assistance. In terms of education, it's a safer move for people and there's clearly loads of demand, so this should fire ahead IMO.
Post a Comment