Fintan O'Toole rightly pointed out in his recent Irish Times series 'TheState of Us' that traditional narratives of Irish identity and nationhood are patently inadequate as descriptions of the Irish social landscape, which is culturally, morally and economically and linguistically fragmented.

This social fragmentation obviously creates a serious problem if the state is to govern on behalf of all: as the priorities and values of different segments of the community begin to diverge, more and more citizens feel unrepresented and alienated from their national rulers. In this scenario, if leading citizens claim to act on behalf of "the people," the natural response would be "which people?

Like it or not, Ireland is church Catholics and decadent Catholics; Protestants, Jews, Muslims and atheists; it is the well-connected and the socially marginalized; rich and poor; developed urban housing and farming communities; gay couples and advocates of traditional marriage; home-based teaching associations, public schools and private schools; people from English-speaking, Irish-speaking and/or Polish-speaking communities; and many other things besides.

How can our Republic be politically structured to meet the needs and demands of all these diverse individuals and groups, and to avoid the political marginalization of a substantial part of the population, with all its associated dangers to political and social stability?

It is unlikely that a single, centralized government can provide a single subject of solutions capable of harmonizing the needs and interests of all. Customized solutions, negotiated on the ground with the groups involved, must be a centerpiece of any viable response to the challenge of governing in a complex, pluralistic society.

However, a central aspect of our national narrative (shared by other modern nations, such as Great Britain, the United States or France) prevents local negotiation of public policy, namely the notion that we are a "sovereign people" that vests its collective power in a single government to govern all in the name of all.

This rarely challenged myth hides the uncomfortable fact of plurality and conflict under an artificial cloak of civic unity. In recent decades, high levels of immigration, secularization and religious and cultural differentiation have made this cover-up even less sustainable.

Insofar as it promotes an inflexible and monistic model of government, the myth of the sovereign people stands in the way of a reasonable political harmonization of the diversity of communities and regions. The entire apparatus of government is seen as inalienable, unitary and sovereign, situated above and behind all other social realities, in the style of the absolutist kings of yesteryear. Thus, any authentic concession of power to local communities is viewed with distrust and suspicion, as a Withdrawal to sovereignty. In the same vein, genuine social diversity is feared as a threat to public order. But if we accept that the Irish nation contains a wide range of communities and associations with very diverse priorities and objectives, then the myth of the sovereign and autonomous people can only serve as an ideological tool for the legitimization of arbitrary political authority, whether by a fickle majority or a remote and self-interested elite.

If this patron saint were to continue, it would surely put us on a path towards the delegitimization of the Republic; for example, communities and associations that are harmed by "sovereign" power might abandon the political process en masse, or, worse, engage in outright refutation of it.

Only by renouncing the ideology of popular sovereignty can we squarely face the fact that Ireland is a community of communities, each of which legitimately pursues distinct purposes of its own and recognizes the right of local communities to negotiate their own solutions to problems of Education, health, religion, use of public space, etc. This nuanced and tailored response to political problems may be resisted in the name of equality, but a local approach is often far more effective and sustainable than top-down solutions designed by distant bureaucrats.

If we really want to be a genuinely pluralistic Republic, we need to abandon the monistic and exclusionary pretensions of national sovereignty and find a constitutional and political agreement that respects the rights of local associations and communities to advance their distinctive purposes and govern their own affairs, within the public order, without requiring special authorization from a "sovereign" state.

subsidize Achieving a post-sovereign constitutional solution would require a wide range of institutional reforms, including devolution of a range of governance powers to local authorities, stronger rights of self-organization and self-government for voluntary associations, and restructuring of taxation so that citizens see their contributions as benefiting their local communities and associations rather than primarily the government.

The result would be something like a federated republic of divided and widely dispersed sovereignty, with stronger cities and localities, less onerous national tax burdens, a more engaged citizenry, and greater recognition and reputation for civil society organizations across the country.

But the impetus for such a transformation in our social and political order is unlikely to come from the state, which has a natural interest in protecting and expanding its monopoly on economic and political power. It is more likely to come from the level of grassroots communities, cities, universities, churches and other associations, as they come to realize that only by strengthening their own self-governing Structures and freeing up local resources can they effectively advance their distinctive ends and reassert some meaningful control over their own destiny.