Northern Ireland's Devolved Institutions: A Triumph of Hope over Experience?

Peace processes are fragile affairs, rarely prospering over the long term without active public support. In the decade 1989–99, only 21 of 110 armed conflicts throughout the world were ended by peace agreements, and only a minority of those agreements survive. Public understanding of peace processes or transitions is critical, particularly where a peace accord relies upon formal public approval through a plebiscite or referendum. Similarly, public expectations concerning the presumed benefits of a peace process need to be satisfied. Peace accords are often accompanied – and justified – by promises of an end to violence, demonstrably better living standards, and the improved provision of public goods and services. Yet the reality for many in societies undergoing political transition, such as South Africa or Croatia, has been a peace deficit and a shortfall in the fulfillment of popular expectations. This article addresses one such society in the throes of an apparent political transition, Northern Ireland, and discusses public knowledge of, and expectations about, the devolved institutions designed by the 1998 Belfast Agreement. It is based on data from a major study of public attitudes conducted between October 1999 and January 2000, the period during which the formal transfer of devolved powers took place. The survey discloses a lack of understanding of the interlocking architecture constructed by the Agreement’s signatories, coupled to a relatively buoyant anticipation of the benefits to be derived from the restoration of devolved government to Northern Ireland. However, events during the autumn of 2002, culminating in the fourth suspension of devolution, underscored the fragility of the new regime. Its susceptibility to the mutual mistrust and suspicion that has structured the perceptions of rival political elites and their respective followers, especially of unionist voters towards the leadership of Sinn Féin and the wider republican movement, was an ever present danger, especially given the comparatively modest level of unionist support for