Tuesday was an exceptionally good day for Northern Ireland. It wasn't simply that the vote in the Assembly in favour of setting up a new executive showed that support for the Belfast Agreement remains just slightly higher (at 72.6 per cent) than the popular vote in last May's referendum. David Trimble achieved an important victory in holding his party reasonably solid and this should go some way to reassuring Sinn Fein that the UUP leader is serious in wanting to implement the accord.
But, as well, there was the tone of the debate and the passionate determination of most of those present to look to the future. Billy Hutchinson expressed the public mood when he said: "We can all talk about Bloody Sunday, Teebane, Bloody Friday, the Shankill bomb, but that's not what we are here for. We're here to find a way forward." The PUP Assembly member made a direct appeal to Sinn Fein, saying that together they could find a way through the present difficulties "I don't say necessarily that I trust you, but I accept that you are trying to find a different, peaceful way forward."
With the Assembly vote out of the way, the challenge of finding some honourable resolution to the decommissioning problem moves to the top of the agenda. We know the arguments on both sides, but do not perhaps fully appreciate just how deep the emotions run. As long as decommissioning could be shelved, there was a certain wishful thinking that it would somehow be solved, either by outside intervention or by the force of reason being brought to bear on the main protagonists.
Now, it's becoming increasingly evident that reason has very little to do with the deep fears on both sides, that what is needed here goes beyond rational arguments. Against this background, the enormous benefits that have already accrued to both communities from the peace process - the absence of violence relative to the past 30 years, the release of prisoners, the setting up of a democratic assembly - seem to be almost ignored.
There is a genuine fear among many republican supporters that the unionists' insistence on decommissioning before Sinn Fein can take its seats on an executive is part of a much broader agenda. They suspect that, from the beginning, the peace process has been designed to lure Gerry Adams and his colleagues into politics, with the aim of weakening the whole republican movement and "crushing the IRA".
That is what Martin McGuinness and others mean when they talk about decommissioning being tantamount to surrender. They point out that there has never been a demand in previous episodes in our history for paramilitary groups to surrender their weapons before being admitted fully to the political process.
Thus runs the argument, which I know will sound almost wilfully paranoid to many readers who think the issue is, anyway, largely symbolic. Even if there were to be a bonfire of guns and explosives under the supervision of Gen John de Chastelain, there would still be nothing to stop the IRA from acquiring a new and deadly arsenal of weapons. But the suspicion of the whole move into politics runs very deep in the broad republican movement. That is why we have already seen splits from Sinn Fein and could yet see more dangerous defections.
This is the view from one side of the trenches. But there exists an equally deep fear among many members, perhaps even the majority, of the unionist community that the IRA wants to hold on to its weapons for one reason only - to retain the option of a return to violence if the political process does not yield the result it wants. This suspicion is not confined to Northern unionists. Many people in this State fear the republican movement also represents a threat to democracy in the whole of Ireland, a view enunciated just last week in the Dail by Des O'Malley.
John Hume, in a timely interview in yesterday's Irish News, described the problem of decommissioning as being "psychological, not political." What is needed now, the SDLP leader argues, is "total reassurance that there will be no return in any shape or form to the violence of the past." Is there any formula of words, or a combination of words and actions, which might succeed in offering the necessary reassurance to both sides? A number of formulae have been suggested, but as yet the confidence has not materialised for either to make the necessary leap of faith.
A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the role of John de Chastelain, the Canadian general who heads the special body on decommissioning. But not even Gen de Chastlelain can come up with a formula for a credible detente unless the opposing parties want to achieve this end. There are other political figures who will probably make the journey to Belfast to engage in a little arm-twisting in the next few weeks.
Tony Blair has said that he intends to play a more active role. The Taoiseach, if he can work out what he wants to happen, clearly has a role to play. President Clinton is waiting in the wings for St Patrick's Day.
But there is one man who, more than any other, has the moral and political authority to make a serious impact on the present difficult situation. It may be that John Hume has been working extremely hard behind the scenes to try and bring the opposing sides together. But the SDLP leader has it in his power to bring back a degree of public confidence in the peace process by his visible involvement. That isn't happening at the moment.
On the contrary, the impression is that he has largely withdrawn from the nitty-gritty of politics at Stormont, probably because of a quite understandable desire not to get in Seamus Mallon's way. From the very first stirrings of the Hume/ Adams, initiative it has been John Hume who has had the vision, the determination and the formidable political skills not only to dream of a radically different future for Northern Ireland but to make it a reality. He argued with and cajoled Sinn Fein to move the IRA away from violence and to give politics a chance. Peace in Northern Ireland is very largely his creation, which is not intended to detract in any way from the important parts which many others have played in the process.
But the peace is not fully secure. It faces what may be its most dangerous challenge yet in resolving the decommissioning issue. It is helpful to read John Hume's view in newspaper interviews and speeches, but would be a great deal more reassuring if we could see him back at the centre of this process, at least until the executive is up and running.