THERE are things that seem like a really good idea at the time but then experience prompts us to ask if they really are.
In theory commissions are great ideas. Policy makers give concrete ground on civic concerns and create institutions that engage at an official level in areas where governments traditionally fall down. Indeed, there are a number written into the Good Friday Agreement as confidence-building measures, and provide ongoing protection to those affected by violations. The resources that accompany said commissions are not inconsiderable, and again that is evidence of a government putting its money where its mouth is. The argument made by many has been that those who are marginalised and censored have an official “champion” or “advocate”.
So persuasive has this been that a number of commissions have been established since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. A Victims Commission. An Institutional Abuse Commission. A Mental Health Commission. And last week the huge step of an Irish Language Commission. These feel like, and are certainly presented as, hard-won gains, and in the case of the Irish language most certainly is.
But then the experience since the Good Friday Agreement might give us pause for thought and prompt us to at least ask a question – Are commissions better than advocates and NGOs? Or are they a way for the status quo to protect itself from the uncomfortable and/or change?
Pulling out each commission and examining each track record would be an exercise worth doing. Are they giving us, and those they purport to amplify, added value? On average each is costing about £1million per annum from the block grant, at a time when the NGOs actually doing the work on the ground are seeing real-time cuts in their budgets. Would the money be better used in delivery by those with their sleeves rolled up as resources for relevant and meaningful research to interrogate the strategic issues relevant to them?
It is surely reasonable to ask at this stage whether commissioners, some of whom appear to be recruited from an ever-decreasing small pool of politically agreeable candidates, are recruited for their ability to create change, or to make the unpalatable more comfortable for policy makers and dinner parties? Angry and affected campaigners can be very disruptive and, dare we say it, “passionate”, while commissioners are “reasonable” and far less likely to create waves. Is that what we want? The acceptable face and palatable voice for any issue? Surely that acts more in favour of the status quo than it does in the interest of those who cannot wait for the tankers of public policy to change course?
The thousands who march for change are the people who create change. The disrupters. The protestors. Those who refuse to be bought. Can the same be said of commissions that often assuage the consciences of the chattering classes, while simultaneously and perversely prevent meaningful change?
As Jake Mac Siacais, the prominent and highly experienced community-based activist, observed while we chewed the cud this week, there is a saying as Gaeilge: “Níl ann ach sop in áit na scuaibe." "It's only a stalk of straw instead of a brush." That feels harsh after immense campaigning for any progress on rights issues in the face of intransigence. But if we put a question mark on it we can at least have an ongoing conversation to ensure all gains are lasting and meaningful.
