{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01572617946345976, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005550416281221091, 'mean_word_length': 4.75531914893617, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Constructive Ambiguity and the Peace Process in Northern Ireland

The Belfast Agreement of 1998 was hailed at the time as a breakthrough in conflict resolution both in Northern Ireland and as a model for international emulation. In fact it has turned out to be neither; rather it has been a sad exercise in surrendering to terrorism and the cause of increased sectarian segregation and enmity. The core of the problem lies in the ‘constructive ambiguity’ at the heart of the Agreement – that is, a form of words that all could sign up to because each party could interpret them differently. This may have enabled everyone to sign up, but also implied they were signing up to different things and therefore were not in agreement. Consequently clever word games and spin by politicians and senior civil servants have created an, in some ways, worse situation, largely because real, substantive issues were ducked. This in turn has its roots in postmodernism, whose baleful influence can be seen throughout not only the Agreement but most government policy over the past 20 odd years.