Breaking the Cycle: Why Calls to Reform Stormont are Growing

Everyone living in Northern Ireland is familiar with the recurring collapse of Stormont. Over nearly thirty years, the devolved Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland have been suspended numerous times, leaving the country without a fully functioning government. When the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998 – establishing the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont to ensure both nationalist (Catholic) and unionist (Protestant) communities share political power – the structures established then were suitable for the circumstances. They aimed to bring together deeply divided groups to share power and ensure no one was left out in this “new” Northern Ireland. However, the political environment has changed dramatically over the last twenty-five years and more. The very institutions set up to keep the peace are now the tools driving government gridlock. As a result, there is a growing call for reform of Stormont because many people are tired of the constant stalemate and  want a government that can effectively provide basic services to the public.

In a typical democracy, if one party withdraws, the remaining parties usually come together to form a government and keep things running smoothly. However, Stormont’s current system is different. If the largest unionist or nationalist party – currently the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) or Sinn Féin – refuses to take part, the entire government cannot function effectively. Think of it like a tandem bike: if one rider stops pedalling, it doesn’t just slow down; it removes the wheels entirely, making it impossible for anyone to ride. This kind of veto – where a single party can block the entire system – has been used at different times by both the DUP and Sinn Féin. As a result, essential services like hospitals, schools, and public budgets suffer because no ministers are available to make decisions. Supporters of reform argue that it is time to change this system and end one party’s power to hold the entire government hostage.

The original system operated on the assumption that every politician could be neatly categorised into one of two main groups: “unionist” and “nationalist.” Important votes, such as approving a budget, require a majority of support from both groups to pass, ensuring cross-community consent. However, over time, an increasing portion of the electorate has stopped voting strictly along these traditional lines. Instead, some parties, like the Alliance and the Green Parties, are classified as “other.” Because of how the rules are written, votes for politicians who identify as “other” carry less weight in these crucial cross-community votes. Reformers argue that maintaining this system is undemocratic because it fails to reflect modern Northern Ireland, where  many people refuse to be limited or defined by old “tribal” identities.

Supporters of reform believe that a series of changes to how Stormont operates are necessary, but the most important proposals can be summarised into three practical steps. The first involves removing the veto power: currently, if a major party refuses to participate in forming a government, the right to hold the top positions at Stormont, namely the First Minister and deputy First Minister, should automatically transfer to the next largest party.

This would allow the government  to continue functioning even without the initial party’s participation. The second proposal suggests changing how laws are passed. Instead of requiring a specific number of votes from “unionist” and “nationalist” members – often seen as dividing lines – it should require a “weighted majority,” meaning a certain percentage of all elected politicians must agree, regardless of their labels. This approach aims to promote broader consensus and reduce focus on political labels. The third measure involves reforming the Petition of Concern – a mechanism included in the Good Friday Agreement –  which acts as an "ethnic veto" so one community cannot pass laws that harm or override the other community. Currently, if at least 30 Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) sign it, a law or measure deemed controversial can only pass if it garners cross-community support, rather than a simple majority. Critics argue that the rules governing when and how this petition can be used should be adjusted to prevent misuse and ensure it serves its original purpose of protecting minority rights without causing unnecessary deadlock.

Some individuals, particularly within unionism, remain cautious about reform proposals, fearing they might be a deceptive tactic to strip them of influence or reduce them to a minority position. Nonetheless, advocates for reform make it clear that their goal is not to dismantle the Good Friday Agreement. Instead, they seek to update and modernise it so it better serves current circumstances. For Northern Ireland to have a stable and sustainable future, with effective public services, the rules under which it operates must reflect the realities and needs of today’s society, rather than only those envisioned or established by the original architects in 1998.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/SamuelLennox

Licence.

No image changes made.