The Future of Northern Ireland: the Role of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement Institutions

Since the 2016 Brexit referendum a series of crises has gripped Northern Ireland's politics. This has had a destabilising effect across society, which has arguably been felt most acutely by political unionism. The Belfast/Good Friday Agreement (B/GFA) of 1998 created a series of institutions to deal with political conflict in Northern Ireland, manage cross-border cooperation and normalise relations between the UK and Ireland. However, many aspects of it have been sparingly and ineffectually deployed, most notably the second and third strands dealing with north/south and east/west relations respectively. In this article, the authors argue that regular use of the institutional arrangements created by the Agreement would help to deal with the challenges currently facing Northern Ireland and help address unionist anxieties over the Protocol. Use of the North-South Ministerial Council (NSMC), the British Irish Council (BIC) and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference (BIIGC) should be prioritised. The unresolved issues arising from Brexit require a recommitment to the intergovernmental logic at the heart of the 1998 Agreement, despite the obstacles.     

Brexit,the Belfast Agreement and Northern Ireland: Imperilling a Fragile Political Bargain

The major impact of the Belfast Agreement was to engineer a peaceful coexistence between nationalism and unionism that involved each bloc recognising it had sufficient power to thwart the political ambitions of the other side, but not enough to push through its own agenda. This paper argues that Brexit seriously damages this peaceful coexistence and could trigger what is termed an Ulster war of attrition in which Northern Ireland becomes entrapped in a political stalemate where each side strives to triumph without having sufficient power to do so. It also argues that to restore internal political stability in Northern Ireland, and to indemnify against the risk of disorderly relationships between the British and Irish governments in the future, the strategic importance of Strand 3 of the Belfast Agreement requires strengthening.     

Consociationalism,corruption and chocolate: Belgian exceptionalism

Governing Belgium is a more complex challenge than governing most other industrialised democracies. The linguistic cleavage and its associated consociationalism, the extremely complex form of federalism, and enduring socio-economic cleavages all pose difficulties for the public sector. Many of the exceptional features of Belgian politics, notably the strength of political parties and perhaps greater clientelism and corruption than found in many other European systems can be seen, however, as means of coping with these complexities and enabling the system to govern.     

Dialectics and the Megamachine: A Critique of Ersatz Education

This article proposes that the learning environment matters, and that there are qualitative differences in online versus face-to-face classes. While online education provides some benefits, they also narrow the opportunities for dialectical conflict that thoroughly challenge student thinking, an interaction more likely to be found in real-time conversations. In person, there is more opportunity for an instructor to challenge the reasoning of students in real time, and for students to ask probing and follow-up questions. The article considers the structure of educational dialectic suggested by important thinkers including Galtung, Habermas, and Buber. Online education is then situated as a technology that interferes with human relations and dialectical reasoning and fits within the notion of technics and the megamachine advanced by Lewis Mumford, which dehumanizes personal interactions with instrumental processes for growth and efficiency. Students follow suit by focusing more on the instrumental absorption of course content to pass the course, instead of higher order critique. Of particular interest to political science education is that if conversational dialectics are weakened in universities, and therefore polities—and the technics are simply considered a natural replacement for in-person conversation—the opportunities to teach critical reasoning required for critique of complex political phenomena are also narrowed. We might temper the dangers of the megamachine by reflexively discussing the political economy of online teaching itself with our students and by starting to expect synchronous conversation, which will open dialectical opportunities.     

Consociationalism and its critics: Evidence from the historic Northern Ireland Assembly election 2007

Critics of consociational power-sharing institutional arrangements in deeply divided societies argue that such arrangements solidify the underlying conflict cleavage and render it all-important for party competition and voter behaviour. I find evidence to the contrary in the case of voter behaviour at the historic 2007 Assembly election in Northern Ireland. At least in the unionist bloc, I find the effective disappearance of the ethno-national conflict cleavage as a determinant of voter choice. This suggests that consociational arrangements have led to both inclusion and moderation, rather than polarisation and ‘ethnic outbidding’.     

Hayek's Bizarre Liberalism: A Critique

This paper questions the conventional view of F. A. Hayek as a reviver of 'classical liberalism'. It argues that the foundation of Hayek's doctrine is a naturalist or physicalist conception of man which is at variance with the classic tenets of liberalism. It shows how Hayek's theory of society and of the abstract rules that ought to govern society are partly a continuation and partly a contradiction of his physicalist notion of man. The paper draws particular attention to Hayek's work The Sensory Order and to the sometimes overlooked influence of Ernst Mach on his ideas.     

The Politics of Studying Politics: Political Science Since the 1960s

The field of political science has undergone significant change since the 1960s. The major shift was toward far greater quantification in the scholarly analyses. That movement sparked enduring controversies. These include disputes pitting scientific detachment against political relevance; specialization against accessibility; and quantitative against qualitative analysis. This article traces the contours of these controversies and offers some reflections on the discipline’s possible future.