A shared future: territoriality, pluralism and public policy in Northern Ireland
A shared future: territoriality, pluralism and public policy in Northern Ireland
复制标题
共同的未来：北爱尔兰的领土性、多元化和公共政策
DOI：
10.1016/j.polgeo.2005.12.006
复制
发表时间：
2006
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
C. Nash
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Graham;C. Nash
本文讨论了北爱尔兰冲突后公共政策的制定。特别是，它考虑了由首席部长和副首席部长办公室的社区关系股于 2003 年 1 月启动的“共同的未来：改善北爱尔兰关系”的扩展协商进程，作为对 1998 年《贝尔法斯特协议》和随后的《北爱尔兰法案》（1998 年）中规定的进一步“良好关系”的法定要求的回应。这一公众咨询过程邀请了对多元化但具有社会凝聚力的社会的一系列核心原则以及一系列促进“良好关系”的政策选择的回应。在本文中，我们在 1998 年协议的联合基础背景下讨论了“共同未来”进程，以及它如何突出文化多样性和多元化理念，但未能充分考虑北爱尔兰身份的时间和空间维度。其次，我们探讨了在领土性在国家、地方甚至个人层面上主导身份的背景下制定鼓励多元但有凝聚力的政体的政策的困难，以及共同未来政策寻求用“正常”资本主义物质空间中的“正常”身份取代族群政治或民族主义标记的方式问题。最后，我们反思了在一个民主授权的政党促进基于领土的民族主义意识形态的社会中，联合民主实践的局限性。
This paper addresses the making of post-conflict public policy in Northern Ireland. In particular it considers an extended consultation process, A Shared Future: Improving Relations in Northern Ireland, initiated in January 2003 by the Community Relations Unit of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, as a response to the statutory requirement to further ‘good relations’ as specified in the 1998 Belfast Agreement and the subsequent Northern Ireland Act (1998). This public consultation process invited responses to a set of core principles for a plural but socially cohesive society and a series of policy options for fostering ‘good relations’. In this paper we discuss the Shared Future process within the context of the consociational underpinnings of the 1998 Agreement and the ways in which it foregrounds ideas of cultural diversity and pluralism but fails to engage adequately with the temporal and spatial dimensions of identities in Northern Ireland. Secondly, we explore both the difficulties of making policy that will encourage a pluralist but cohesive polity in a context in which territoriality dominates identity at state, local and even individual scales, and the problems of the ways the Shared Future policy seeks to replace ethnocratic or ethno-nationalist markers with those of ‘normal’ identities in ‘normal’ capitalist material space. We conclude with reflections on the limitations of consociational democratic practices in a society that has democratically mandated political parties promoting territorially-based ethno-nationalist ideologies.