Recovery or eclipse: where now for the SDLP

Bobbie Heatley examines some of the challenges facing the new SDLP leadership

THE NATIONALIST SDLP held its annual conference over the weekend of November 9 - 11. It did so at a time when it faces a problematical future, though not as a result of the retirement of its longstanding leaders John Hume and Seamus Mallon. In recent Westminster and local government elections Sinn Fein overtook the SDLP in terms of the nationalist and republican vote and it is clear that the new leadership under Mark Durkan and Brid Rodgers, both capable politicians, will have much to do if the party is to recover lost ground. THE NATIONALIST SDLP held its annual conference over the weekend of November 9 - 11. It did so at a time when it faces a problematical future, though not as a result of the retirement of its longstanding leaders John Hume and Seamus Mallon.

In recent Westminster and local government elections Sinn Féin overtook the SDLP in terms of the nationalist and republican vote and it is clear that the new leadership under Mark Durkan and Brid Rodgers, both capable politicians, will have much to do if the party is to recover lost ground.

If they fail it will not be due to Durkan's lack of astuteness or Rodgers' age but down to political philosophy and the application of a correct strategy for the future.

Unfortunately, the SDLP conference spent too much time in self-congratulation for claimed past successes, including the Good Friday agreement, and not enough on asking how these were achieved and on how to progress towards what the electorate is trying to tell them is the ultimate democratic goal -- equality, unity and independence.

Reflection will tell the new party leadership that significant advances were made when it came together with Sinn Fein in the Hume/Adams concordat of 1993 -- itself the product of talks begun five years earlier. Prior to that, the SDLP had been giving the impression of a drunk bashing his head against a unionist/British stone wall.

Elements within the SDLP now seem to believe that sufficient progress has now been made, and that as Sinn Féin has benefited more from what unionists have dubbed the 'pan-nationalist front', the party should now pull the plug on the arrangement.

The danger is that, following the contrived election of Trimble and Durkan as first and deputy first 'minister' in the assembly, the temptation for this kind of 're-focusing' will increase within the SDLP.

Aside from the fact that the DUP's legal challenge to what it (with good reason) calls 'this gerrymander' will probably fail, cosying up to even so-called 'liberal' unionism is full of pitfalls.

Steps in this direction, prompted by the Catholic hierarchy and the Dublin government, have already been taken with the party's decision to give credibility to the newly-formed Police Board by nominating its representatives.

None of the SDLP spokespeople claim that the Patten reforms have been fully implemented. Then again, how could they when the Mandelson-inspired legislation at Westminster remains unamended and continues to form the legal basis for the re-named RUC? New legislation is promised but has not surfaced yet.

Despite this, the SDLP decided to participate in the new board, not wishing to appear to be being led by Sinn Féin. It has justified its position by claiming that it will utilise its position to secure the full implementation of Patten.

Exactly how they proposes to achieve this is unclear given that the board has five outright unionists on it, including Lord Brookeborough, eight secretary of state appointees, designated as 'independents', and only four members of the SDLP. Sinn Féin, which represents the largest number of nationalist and republican voters, has declined to join it, and with good reason. It would be nonsensical to have to argue interminably for a full implementation of Patten when the commission's recommendations remain the sole responsibility of the British government.

Given that the UUP and the DUP, despite their other squabbles over the Good Friday agreement, have met at least twice to thresh out a plan for utilising the new board as a vehicle for arresting further reform, the SDLP may yet regret not giving more credence to Sinn Féin's caution.

If the DUP's latest challenge to Reid over his failure to nominate a date for assembly elections fails, the SDLP could possibly have just a year and a half in which to improve its fortunes.

Of course, this assumes that Trimble will surmount another Ulster Unionist Council challenge to his leadership, something for which the agreement rejectionists are scheming, and that he will not put another IRA decommissioning trip-wire in place for February.

This is unexplored territory for the SDLP, which would be well-advised to move carefully. While British proconsul, John Reid, in deference to both the SDLP and the UUP, both of whom fear an early election, may succeed in gaining time for both parties, the SDLP will need to clarify two other key issues of increasing concern to voters:

Is the SDLP, as John Hume argues, a 'post-nationalist' party, with the implication self-government in a re-united Ireland is an irrelevancy; and does Hume's position make sense alongside his argument that membership of a federalising EU means Ireland taking a share in the sovereignty of Germany, France and so on.

In the event of the devolved assembly settling down to a quasi-normality, over the coming year, questions such as these are likely to become important yardsticks by which the SDLP will be measured.

December 2001/January 2002