The Good Friday Agreement, one of his lesser-known creations, created a 60-member Civic Forum to advise Northern Ireland’s political leaders on social, economic and cultural issues. It was launched in 2000. It has met only 12 times.

The body, which brought together members from business, trade unions and the voluntary sector, was dissolved in 2002 when Stormont fell. Years later, politicians talked about reopening it. In reality, they had no interest in seeing it come back.

Today there is a need for such a body, but perhaps not just one, which would draw on the views of the whole of Northern Irish society on life in this region, but also on North/South relations and on relations between Ireland and Great Britain.

The current political environment in Northern Ireland is a hindrance rather than a help to such positive change. Indeed, the measure of the advancement of a significant minority is still measured by the extent to which it disadvantages and devalues ​​its opponents.

If such a perspective prevails, persists or succeeds, there is little chance of a better society emerging for all. But in such an environment, how can positive relationships realistically develop and how can progressive change take place?

Clearly this is highly unlikely. If so, we might be well advised to look beyond the current political system and towards other forms of influence and opinions that could help to achieve the much-needed progress.

Perhaps it should not come as too much of a surprise that Jim Allister, now a Westminster MP, chose the name Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) when he founded his organisation in 2007, given that it was set up as a protest movement.

Its aim, then as now, is to “restore the Union”. The TUV prioritises resistance over reform as its primary objective. Unsurprisingly, in the party’s 2024 manifesto, mention of relations with Dublin is conspicuous by its absence and the emphasis is on the threats to the Unionist way of life.

The TUV’s emphasis is not on collaborative or pragmatic motivation, but on the preservation and sustainability of identity. The emphasis here is on strength and principle as evidence of integrity and reliability, the measure of which is immutability, uniformity and inertia.

While this perspective may appeal to those who believe that the past can be protected and defended, it nevertheless reveals the fundamental flaw that characterises much of political unionism: the failure to grasp the value of change and collaboration as drivers of progress.

The TUV may represent a minority of trade unionism, but as an example of modern trade unionist political expression its message remains remarkably consistent with a general failure to express hope and confidence in a different and better future.

In this sense, the party is indeed advocating tradition.

This pessimism is not without context, however. Northern Ireland has not had a decade of uninterrupted government since 1998. Similarly, the first-past-the-post voting system introduced in St Andrews has created conflicting and divisive positions.

In this context, it is hardly surprising that the negative messages so common in Northern Irish politics continue to resonate and have some appeal. These messages reflect expectations of rejection and intransigence.

The Northern Ireland Civic Forum, agreed under the Good Friday Agreement, brought together 60 representatives from civil society to discuss social and political issues. In doing so, it provided a basis for collaboration and consensus outside politics, allowing for broader reflection on areas of contention.

The Civic Forum, provided for in the Good Friday Agreement, operated for only two years, from 2000 to 2002, before being dissolved and never revived. Interestingly, the idea was proposed again in 2001, this time to improve North-South relations. Again, it came to nothing.

At the time, those who supported the idea believed that it would represent the complexity of social and political relations that cut across the three strands of the agreement – ​​North/South, East/West and within Northern Ireland.

Civic forums examining each of these relationships, separately and together, could converge to challenge political obstruction and build better relationships now across Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and the Republic and between the Republic and the United Kingdom.

It is significant that Sinn Féin, like the Democratic Unionist Party, welcomed the dissolution of the Civic Forum, seeing it as an unnecessary obstacle to power and control, as did their unionist political partners.

In both cases, the politics of division is preferable to coalition-style political representation. But given the divisions that continue to exist in Northern Ireland, the case for stronger cooperative structures remains compelling.

Unable to think in terms of cross-community needs in a way that reflects the values ​​of citizenship and the common good, political change in Northern Ireland is held back by an emphasis on difference rather than commonality, by irreconcilability rather than compatibility.

Closer interaction across three distinct but interdependent forums offers the opportunity to resolve disagreements and differences in a way that is not possible in a conflictual political realm that works against the collective interest rather than for it.

Positive work on sectarianism, diversity, reconciliation, public service and political accountability is urgently needed and a civic forum can contribute to progress in a way that the divided politics of Northern Ireland cannot.

The clash between the arguments surrounding the debates over a united Ireland or the United Kingdom dominates much of the decision-making and policy posturing in Northern Ireland and it is difficult to envisage progress when questions of national identity frame and contain the discussions.

Focusing on issues less mired in the one-sidedness of territorial claims requires addressing mutual concerns constructively, offering a way to broaden the debate beyond the narrow confines of zero-sum political games.

While for Sinn Féin tradition is prioritised through the new language of transformation (consent, sharing, reciprocity, multicultural), for many unionists such transformation is at odds with tradition. Given that this terrain is so strongly articulated by republicans, many unionists fear it and turn away from it.

This clearly shows the strength of divisions. It also highlights the need to find alternatives. If we adopt a new approach, which would allow us to open the debate in a way that solves everyday problems and proposes concrete and demonstrable solutions, relations could be less toxic.

New civic organizations that can strengthen cooperation and relationships can bypass the predictable hostilities and antagonisms of politics. In such a climate, politics is too important to be left in the hands of politicians. Now is the time to involve citizens again in building a better future for all.

Graham Spencer is Professor of Social and Political Conflict at the University of Portsmouth.