Sir, – In recent months, we have heard increasing calls for an all-island citizens’ assembly on a future united Ireland. The idea has been championed by the Ireland’s Future movement, Queen’s University Belfast professor Colin Harvey and, more recently, by Fine Gael TD Neale Richmond.
On the face of it, this seems a very good idea. A citizens’ assembly is a small group of people randomly selected to be representative of the population. The participants are given balanced information and the chance to question experts. They are also provided with the space and time to genuinely discuss the issues and arrive at a considered judgment.
Essentially, a citizens’ assembly is not just a microcosm of the public, but a specially educated microcosm. It tells us what the public might think if it could be put through the same educative process. The recommendations that emerge tend to be both moderate and nuanced. Polarisation tends to decrease.
There are, however, two fundamental problems with the idea of a citizens’ assembly on a united Ireland – one practical, the other principled.
The practical problem is the more obvious of the two. A randomly selected, representative sample is hard to secure. Since the topic of discussion is intended to be restricted to what a united Ireland could look like, the incentive for unionists to participate is likely to be low.
Of course, some shades of unionism may participate.
But the fact remains that skewed samples lead to skewed results.
The principled problem has to do with the theory on which citizens’ assemblies rest – deliberative democracy.
In a deliberative democracy, people give reasons for their views but are equally willing to listen with an open mind to the views of others.
An all-island citizens’ assembly on whether there should be a united Ireland could satisfy this principle. An all-island assembly that sought instead to restrict discussion to what a united Ireland could look like would not.
It would rule some views out of court in advance.
Citizens’ assemblies are all the rage nowadays. I have worked on them for many years.
Yet while they are a powerful democratic tool, they are not suitable for all political topics. Ireland’s Future, Colin Harvey and Neale Richmond know this to be the case.
The question, then, is why they are persisting in promoting this idea? – Yours, etc,
Dr IAN O’FLYNN,
Senior Lecturer
in Political Theory,
School of Geography,
Politics and Sociology,
Newcastle University,
UK.
Sir, – I understand why Michael McDowell would urge us to take account of the sensitivities of the unionist community (“North needs conciliation, not a referendum”, Opinion & Analysis, May 5th).
But what about the sensitivities of the nationalist community!
For years, we have promised them that if they pursued a political rather than military solution, we would honour their legitimate political aspirations if and when they became the majority.
Judging by the tenor of the articles appearing recently in The Irish Times, we appear to be back-pedalling from that solemn commitment at a rate of knots.
I’m not suggesting that the problem is easy to solve, but favouring one political aspiration at the expense of the other is not a sustainable solution.
I wrote to this newspaper over 20 years ago suggesting that “repartition” is the only permanent and just solution, and nothing has happened since to change my mind – quite the contrary. – Yours, etc,
JOHN McGRATH,
Ashford,
Co Wicklow.