The potential exists for factionalism in a post-Paisley era, writes Frank Millar, London Editor
Tony Blair and Bertie arrive in Armagh this morning to launch the latest political intiative on the North, as planned. Any evidence to contradict denials by the republican leadership and implicate the Provisional IRA in the murder of Denis Donaldson will leave it stillborn. However at the time of writing Tony Blair is determined that politics go on, that he is the man to persuade the Rev Ian Paisley to say "Yes" - and at least contents himself that the Democratic Unionist Party leader is not yet saying "No".
Dr Paisley presides over a potentially divided party. Not on his watch, of course. But no one can know or predict what will happen - inside the party he dominates, or in the wider unionist community in Northern Ireland - when "the Big Man" finally leaves the stage.
Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams knows and acknowledges that "the Paisley deal is the best deal" - if it can be had. Hence Blair's decision to disregard serious Sinn Féin and SDLP objections and proceed, or attempt to proceed, by way of a transitional Assembly at Stormont which he hopes will see a powersharing Executive restored by the end of the year.
For Blair, of course, there are also "legacy" issues at play. The Belfast Agreement was a landmark achievement of his first term, and his devotion to the Northern Ireland question is legendary. Even forgetting history books, he would naturally wish to bequeath a settled, secure Northern Ireland to his successor. Moreover - for all the threatening noises-off about a Plan B, and an ever-greener form of direct rule - he instinctively grasps that the best prospect of that lies in partnership with mainstream unionism.
Paisley now indisputably speaks for the unionist majority, and so represents the putative partner of necessity if not choice. Nobody doubts that, if persuaded his terms had been met, Paisley is the one unionist leader who could do the deal with Adams and make it stick.
It would hurt like hell in the Paisley heartlands. Traditionalists like MPs William McCrea and David Simpson might be able to adapt to the newly-moderate public persona of the DUP, thinking it merely a requirement of the eternal "blame game". Others not in the elected front-line might simply abandon the "dirty" world of politics altogether, if confronted with the necessity of the compromise they have for so long equated with treachery and betrayal. Yet that "the Doc" could carry the day seems not in serious doubt.
The same cannot be said with certainty about whoever might eventually succeed him. Nor, despite the best hopes of British and Irish policy planners, is it guaranteed who that will be.
Deputy leader Peter Robinson can certainly talk the talk, and those who know him best have no doubt he could ultimately deliver a political settlement, and wants to. Among his closest allies there is no question that he should eventually inherit the leadership; not just because of 30 odd years of loyal service, but because it is in no small measure his organisational skills which have transformed the DUP from a party of protest into the dominant force within unionism. They also acknowledge that today's initiative owes much to his skill in negotiations with the British government. Blair and Secretary of State Peter Hain appear to have bought Robinson's argument that an alternative "process" is required, and that what cannot be obtained in one step might be had in two or more. The potential downside of this strategy is that it relies on the hope or belief that Paisley's predictable "No" to powersharing in June might become a "Yes" come the rumoured autumn "deadline". If it does not, the DUP's so-called "modernising" tendency risks further damage of the kind it suffered following the failure of the proposed "comprehensive agreement" in December 2004.
And there may be those waiting and watching in the wings, possibly with their own leadership designs, ready to exploit the consequences should Blair's initiative crash-land in November, if not before. In the view of some colleagues, DUP MEP Jim Allister is probably positioning himself for a future leadership bid, based on a more traditionalist platform. And in Dublin close attention is being paid to chief whip Nigel Dodds, playing with his cards held firmly to his chest.
In rude good health, Paisley would doubtless scoff at such speculation. However not even the DUP is immune to the laws of politics. There is no possibility of any faction emerging to challenge this leader, but the potential exists for factionalism, if not outright division, in a post-Paisley era. British and Irish officials wonder when, and in what circumstances, a battle for the succession might arise, and whether its outcome might even occasion a further "realignment" within unionism. In Blair's "big picture" terms, they must also allow that failure now, coupled with a continuing Paisley veto for some time ahead, could see "events" leave the recovery of some variation of the Belfast Agreement finally beyond reach.
It isn't difficult then to understand the renewed pitch for Paisley's consent for a new deal. But will it be forthcoming? One DUP MP has counselled The Irish Times not to presume a "no" come the autumn, offering the belief that Paisley "is tempted" and "would dearly like to finish his days as first minister of Northern Ireland". But the DUP leader was said to be similarly tempted in 2004.The DUP source cites his wish then to be remembered "as a peacemaker". Yet there is also strong evidence to the contrary, that Paisley's "sackcloth and ashes" demand of Sinn Féin was delivered with prior knowledge that the IRA was not going to deliver on the deal then requiring photographs of IRA decommissioning. And the Northern Bank robbery came in the immediate aftermath of the failed comprehensive agreement - an event one Irish official called "a near death experience for the Big Man". Might he be tempted to risk it a second time?
Today on his 80th birthday Paisley finds himself, in the words of the song, top of the heap, king of the hill, number one. He might reflect that his electoral achievements are standing rebuke to Enoch Powell's dictum that "all political careers end in failure". Blair's fear must be that Paisley will not share his view of what might constitute failure, and calculate rather that he has already had success enough.