It has been a long time in the making. But now that the executive has published its draft programme for Cohesion, Sharing and Integration we have a real chance to debate how best to make lasting change, who should be taking the lead and, above all, to agree on the key issues which need to be addressed.

Sectarianism is more than a few hooded men attacking vulnerable people in their homes. It is a legacy of history which persuades too many people that it is a pattern that has not yet changed, it is a structure which has shaped what we think of as 'normal' in education, in housing, in culture and in politics, it is a behaviour which shapes mundane choices like where we live, where we will go or what we can say and it is a set of attitudes which subtly or otherwise divides the world into us and them and excuses all sorts of discrimination and exclusion.

Yet, in reality, the only question in town is what kind of diverse and multicultural society we want. Violence and hate crime are not limited to sectarianism but infect and affect our relations with all sorts of minorities. The notion of 'our area' has become taken for granted and a terrible tolerance for casual exclusion has deep roots. Our cultural displays are too often moments to stick it up to the others rather than celebrate an inheritance. And all of this impacts on the life chances of our children, the quality of life we lead and the economy we can grow. Tourism will always be an uphill battle if your signature weakness is summer riots. Investment and an end to public sector dependency will remain elusive if there are safer places to go.

The debate should be about how far and how quickly we want to move to abolish the notion of them and us. The debate should be about what issues we should tackle to address sectarianism in all its forms - including tackling all residual exclusion and discrimination, coming to a conclusion on how we are to address the past and building the notion of cohesion, sharing and integration into all of our institutions, how we do business and what we think of as normal.

For real change, we need serious engagement across society which brings the greatest change for those who have paid the biggest price. And the Community Relations Council believes we need an independent institution with the agreed job of championing progress even in the face of huge political pressures to press the advantage of one community or another.

What the CSI debate cannot be is a casual wave through, another yawn on an issue that does not matter. The promise of political agreement is that we make decisions as partners, and maybe even friends. The danger if we don't is that enmity will continue to fester and that our political progress will look ever more like a sham managing a festering violence. Make sure you have your say.