The agreement cannot be replaced but there are things that could be done better, writes Seán Farren
Claims by opponents of the Belfast Agreement that it must be replaced make no sense.
The agreement recognises the reality that without cross-community partnership there can be no stable, workable political institutions in the North. Partnership must also extend across Ireland as a whole.
And it acknowledges the truth that real partnership between nationalists and unionists must also be based on equality, respect for human rights and parity of esteem. That is why there is no way forward other than the agreement's way forward.
And what alternative do those who rail against it have? The DUP may want a return to majoritarianism. That would be preposterous, and it must know that it will never happen.
The DUP also argues that ministers must be made more accountable. But ministers clearly were accountable, every bit as much as ministers in Dublin or London are. Their policies were questioned, debated and scrutinised closely. All their legislation had to be passed by the assembly.
Still, the DUP says it wants to go further. In effect, it wants assembly committees to be able to overturn any decision that a minister makes - right down to the number of pens ordered by his or her department. That would cause total chaos. It does not happen in any serious administration - and it must not happen here.
And, one has to ask, is it what Peter Robinson really would have wanted as a minister? Would he have wanted to submit every important decision to an assembly committee, or risk having it overturned afterwards? He would have wanted nothing of the sort - and rightly so. How could we have coped with a crisis like foot-and-mouth disease with that kind of bureaucracy preventing decisive action?
It is clear the DUP is looking for change for change's sake to justify its stance that the agreement itself needs to be renegotiated.
The Alliance Party, meanwhile, wants rule by a voluntary coalition and to scrap the agreement's requirement for an inclusive executive. Yet the best way of resolving our problems in a divided society is by getting everybody around the one table to work together, and it is deeply disappointing that Alliance has now turned its back on this. Of course, Alliance knows that it does not get enough votes to make it to the executive table like everybody else does. So it wants to up-end the agreement and change the system to one that gives the party a better chance of getting its hands on ministerial office. Hardly admirable.
That said, there are things - consistent with the agreement - that we could do better. For example, by building more collectivity into government. But the DUP can hardly be accepted as an advocate of this. They, after all, did more to undermine collectivity in government than anybody else by refusing even to attend executive meetings.
Overall, the reality is that the agreement's institutions not only worked, but worked well. And none of the crises caused over the last five years were brought about by them. All were caused by the failure of unionist politicians fully to work the institutions and the failure of all paramilitaries - republican and loyalist - to end all their activities. These are the key issues for the review. After all, it is not the agreement that voters are disillusioned with, but the failure of all parties to live up to it.
That is why paramilitary activity, loyalist and republican, must end. And it is why unionist politicians must agree to work all the agreement's political institutions, just as Sinn Féin must work its policing institutions. That must be the review's core agenda.
All this can be done - and done quickly if the will is there. But it requires a unity of purpose among parties and governments which seems so far to be lacking. We therefore face the real danger of a long and protracted review.
Given that risk there is a heavy onus on the two governments to work together to deliver the agreement and the joint declaration. That is why the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference is so important. The two governments must use it to work together more closely than ever before. Together, they must drive change. Doubtless, London will have little appetite for this. That is why the SDLP looks to Dublin to force the pace.
That means, for example, the two governments publishing detailed plans for implementing all the joint declaration's commitments on equality, human rights, justice and normalisation.
By doing this the two governments will give confidence that the agreement is the only way forward and encourage a greater sense of political realism among its opponents.
Equally, by insisting on the complete end to all paramilitary activity that the agreement requires, the two governments can keep pressure on loyalist and republican paramilitaries to live up to their responsibilities.
Those paramilitaries that do not end all activity, including criminality, must also know that they will face the full sanction of the law.
Injecting impetus into the British Irish Intergovernmental Conference is every bit as important as the the review that starts tomorrow. At a time of potential deadlock, the two governments must provide the lead. They must show their commitment to the agreement - and demand the same commitment of the North's parties.
• Seán Farren MLA is a senior negotiator for the SDLP