The electorate prefers to be persuaded rather than coerced.

Not renowned for thinking aloud or acknowledging failings, it is a positive to note that both Peter Robinson, former First Minister and Reverend Mervyn Gibson, Leader of the Orange Order have hinted, albeit tentatively, at a need for fresh thinking within Unionism and Orangeism respectively. Mr Robinson, in warning of a looming border poll urges politicians to make the case for the Union. It begs the obvious question of political unionism: ‘What have you been doing up to now?’ More importantly, it raises pivotal issues which should be addressed in tandem, if not first of all.

Since the Good Friday Agreement, we have had St Andrews, Hillsborough and A Fresh Start all of which were lauded as advancing the maintenance of the Union through mainly DUP electoral success. Now it seems, it is less secure. Were these just pyrrhic victories or false dawns? If so, there must be merit in looking at where the strategic or policy flaws lie.

No well-made case for the Union will work if the strategies and policies are not in place to deliver the end goal. There is little point in plotting an evidence-based course for the vessel, if the crew, even when it is turned around, insist on sailing in the same direction. The case for the union relies not just on the values, integrity and humility of those who advocate for the cause. Disdain for diversity and emphasis on the dark world of blind party loyalty and cronyism needs to be consigned to the past.

Mr Robinson refers to those who are pro-union but who do not vote for Unionist parties or do not vote. That they are already pro-Union points to the fact that they understand the evidence and the merits of the argument. This suggests that the remedy lies in changing the nature of unionist politics. Underpinning these with a strong sense of ethics and principles allied to putting aside rage politics to foster relationships would go some way to changing for the better.

The electorate prefers to be persuaded rather than coerced through fear-mongering and prejudice: to be led rather than commanded. It is the latter which has produced a democratic deficit within unionism where ever-growing pro-union or civic unionist electors feel disenfranchised.

Young people, especially, have no interest or feel so inclined as to engage in the gender, religious and social status labelling which de-humanises those with whom they work, socialise and study. Within communities, culturally hybrid and self-confident in their identity, pro-Union groups and individuals of all ages work inclusively on issues of common interest to build positive relationships and transform society. Mostly social-democrat in outlook and with a global perspective, they are interested in wealth creation and fair distribution rather than wealth accumulation, welfare, education, environment and employment. It is living in this type of home that will make the case for the Union. Politicians who rely on symbols, tub-thumping and demonising the opposition, need to catch up.

Crisis-mode unionism has been too comfortable with what it is against than what it is for.

In the past, unionist leaders have failed or baulked at leading unionism into fresh thinking. Speaking in October 2010, Peter Robinson called for an integrated schooling system. In 2011, buoyed by the result of a Life and Times survey showing a significant minority of Catholics in support of the Union, the DUP leader spoke of the need to persuade Catholic voters to support his party. As it turned out like predecessors of like mind, the bridge he was attempting to build never reached the other side.

Demographic change, Brexit and the erratic success of political unionism in elections now point to a belated expedient to find answers to pressing issues. As people change, the Union will change. Brexit continues to test loyalties; regional and social inequality apparent in the Covid-pandemic crisis added to pressure on devolution is creating fluidity and openness in thinking.

Support for the Union remains strong but this can alter. It will come back to the lives of individuals and how the political arrangements deliver the quality of life and opportunities available. Political Unionism needs to address this through fresh rather than re-cycled thinking. A good place to start is to consider what it can do better; have an honest look at itself. The Good Friday Agreement was designed to build consensus for the common good but default political unionism has been too focused on power retention. 

Plot a new route ahead. That the majority prefer the traditional one, is less the case than some unionist leaders believe.