If, as now seems likely, the DUP and Sinn Féin finally do reach agreement on an all-encompassing political settlement for Northern Ireland, it will, undoubtedly, greatly enhance the prospects for a peaceful resolution to our conflict, writes David Adams
And, if they can achieve that, then both those parties will be deserving of any plaudits that come their way.
But, whatever its shape, it would be naive to think that, on its own, an agreement on political structures and external relationships can remove the potential for continued instability here if our political parties don't start lobbying for electoral support beyond their traditional religious-based constituencies.
That we are a divided society is self-evident, but hardly unique. In fact, every properly functioning liberal democracy worthy of the title is home to any amount of overlapping and criss-crossing societal divisions, most obviously along the lines of religion, ethnicity, economic status, political outlook and social standing. .
Some of these are fixed but most are variable in their composition. A small number of groups are almost always in competition with one another but, in the main, alliances between differing groups are formed or, conversely, battle lines drawn, on an ad-hoc basis relative to a particular issue or set of circumstances. That, in short, is how a healthy democracy is supposed to work.
Within Northern Ireland, to some degree or another, all of that necessary human interaction does take place, but in dual form within separate spheres. As near as makes no difference, we have two separate, almost hermetically-sealed and self-contained societal configurations here: one Catholic, the other Protestant.
There are times when people of different religions do momentarily unite around a particular issue, but those instances are rare, short-lived and, whatever the common cause for concern, it invariably plays second fiddle to tribal cohesion and loyalty.
If that were to be our only post-agreement problem, then there might be some grounds for hoping that the sectarian tribal barriers would begin to break down of their own accord within a generation or two. But it isn't, for running alongside it we have a related but altogether more unusual kind of fissure to contend with.
Our two religious tribes are also completely at odds with one another over where the future constitutional position of Northern Ireland should lie. Considering that those on either side of this major issue of contention are almost equal in numerical strength and that the most recent census in 2001 indicated that things are set to remain that way, it is certain that, unless the politicians adopt an altogether different approach, it will continue to cause us untold problems.
We have a situation where unionism exists in perpetual fear of being out-bred, while broad nationalism lives in a state of continual expectation - hardly the recipe for a settled community.
And, far from trying to defuse the situation, politicians on both sides have, to date, sought to exploit it for their own political ends. On the face of it, the principle of consent enshrined within the Belfast Agreement was designed to, on the one hand, assuage unionist fears of a government sell-out by placing the future constitutional status of Northern Ireland in the hands of its electorate and, on the other and by the same token, to give an undertaking to nationalism that, in the event of a majority clearly demonstrating a preference for joining with the rest of the island in a single unitary state, their wish would be acceded to.
But it was designed to do something else as well, and if the essential logic of this and its relevance to such an evenly balanced society had been recognised, and the clear challenge that it presents been taken up by politicians on all sides, then it would indeed have helped ease tensions.
With our society virtually stalemated on the constitutional question, the principle of consent puts a clear onus on local politicians to look beyond their own religious tribe for the extra converts to their cause they need.
For the fact is, that if unionism is to consolidate for the foreseeable future Northern Ireland's constitutional position within the United Kingdom, or, conversely, if republicans are ever to achieve their goal of a united Ireland, they must first convince at least a small section of the "other side" to come round to their point of view. It is a reality that, so far at least, the main political parties have failed to address or even, in any real sense, publicly acknowledge.
There can, of course, be no guarantee for either side that a campaign of peaceful persuasion will have any measure of success.
But consider how tensions would be eased and the situation transformed if, instead of continually seeking confrontation with, or forever levelling insults at, the other religious tribe, our political leaders began at last to separate out the mixture of politics and religion that continues to bedevil us.
Ultimately, charm offensives may not work, but, by God, they would be easier to live with than all the other offensives that have been tried.