jump to navigation

Red lines… July 31, 2013

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Culture, Irish Politics, Northern Ireland.
trackback

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about that PUP statement released earlier in the year on the political process in Northern Ireland in the recent past. In particular one paragraph caught my attention.

“There are no political parties in Northern Ireland qualified to drive a process of reconciliation,” the PUP statement argued.
“All have contributed to a greater or lesser degree to the divisions that we must address. A political party’s view of reconciliation tends to reflect their own ideology and thus reconciliation becomes dependent on acceptance of their political objectives and aspirations.’

None of the largest and only some of the smallest political parties in the North can be regarded as having not contributed to the divisions. Alliance, of course, is perhaps able to point to a positive history – though interesting that the PUP should ignore that. And there are smaller parties that have played no hand or part. But it’s interesting. Is the SDLP as problematic as, say, the UUP, let alone other larger parties?

And while granted the SDLP is ‘nationalist’, though small ’n’ in some respects – or at least so some might believe, how could it be otherwise?

Indeed look at Alliance and how long it has taken it to achieve even the modest success of the present period and then consider the likelihood of parties analogous to Alliance rising to supplant SF, or the DUP or the SDLP or UUP. Does it seem likely that that will happen any time soon.

But it continues:

“However reconciliation is defined, we believe that it will not work if conceived as an extension of the political process.
“In that instance, reconciliation will become little more than a reinforcement of the two-horse political race that currently dominates. It will be about point-scoring and securing and protecting political interest.

But how can any reconciliation exist outside the political process given the point raised above that replacement parties are not in the offing. And more pertinently in relation to what the PUP suggests next how is it possible for there to be reconciliation in a context where one political approach is reified and the other is ignored. Because that is the logic of the following:

“We understand the difficulties that the nationalist community faces given that the Union is secure and the prospect of a united Ireland is further away than ever.
“However, there needs to be a recognition that for the foreseeable future Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom and reconciliation needs to be sought in the context of that political reality.

What the PUP is asking is that nationalists and Republicans stop pushing politically towards…well… nationalism and Republicanism, which is in essence to strip out a significant part of their political identity, while asking nothing of unionism or loyalism. The latter can simply rest on the status quo, despite the PUP suggesting that…

“We welcome a process that facilitates the nationalist narrative and contributes to a wider understanding of the impact that conflict had on the nationalist community. Nationalists should be afforded the same opportunities to participate in a process of dealing with the past as any community.

And also continuing…

“We ask that this be no different for loyalism too. No individual, party or group should be favoured over any other if reconciliation is to work; and no reconciliation process can have merit if there is any hint of exclusion or bias.”

It’s not that novel an idea. Something similar has been heard from a variety of sources over the years albeit put in a more clearly political context rather than one of reconciliation.

But I think it’s a bit illusory. Northern Ireland is contested space, and perhaps will be for decades and more to come.

In a way it seems to me a better way forward would be to explore the nature of the space and see how much of both identities (and others) can be accommodated within it and with linkages South and East. In other words rather than attempting to quash one or other identity in either its political or other expression to attempt to reify both and others and give more substance to them. And this, I think would be as important in terms of reconciliation as it was in politics.

Difficult though, no question about it. For it would demand more than passive acceptance, or tolerance, or even inactive hostility (which seems to characterise some of the status quo), in relation to those new linkages, which by definition would demand something of all identities.

But what is the alternative? An imbalanced dispensation along the lines suggested above, or perhaps tilted in the other direction?

Comments»

1. Mick Fealty - July 31, 2013

I think you are on to something when you ask “is the SDLP as problematic as, say, the UUP, let alone other larger parties?”

If this is a reliable analysis from the PUP (and although they do have a very big legacy problem all of their own making, I’m inclined to agree that it is) and there is no clear answer to that question even in regard to the SDLP, then we do, surely, have a problem?

Like

2. benmadigan - July 31, 2013

Scrap Northern Ireland.
Its economic situation is yet another reason why it should go See eurofree3.wordpress.com.
Start all over again from scratch.
Some other solution to the problem must be possible.
It’s time to start exploring realistic, viable alternatives

Like

3. Jim Monaghan - July 31, 2013

No mention of the Alliance. This when the PUPs allies in the UVF have done an effective pogrom. The trouble with the Alliance is that they are so polite they would not use this term.Long’s supporters were targetted. And neither the PUP, UUP, DUP or assorted Unionists said or did anything.

Like

rockroots - July 31, 2013

Quite. I wonder if the PUP would be so willing to recognise Orange marches as the triumphalist provocation that they clearly are, and that there would really be no place for them (as they currently exist) in a future NI that respects contentious heritage. I know David Ervine on occasion called himself a socialist, but the PUP line would still seem to be ‘socialism on our terms’ – perhaps not unlike their republican counterparts?

Like

4. Phil - August 4, 2013

Many years ago, back in the early 1990s, I was at a meeting in an east Belfast community centre. I was there as part of a delegation of community and campaign activists from Dublin. We were made very welcome and there was a discussion of common problems and interests. I recall that William ‘Plum’ Smith was there and was the main speaker from that community centre. He spoke in quite socialist-sounding terms, so I decided to raise the national question in as delicate a way as I could (I was also very aware of where I was and the need not to expose myself as a Shinner).

So in as diplomatic manner as I could, I raised the question of whether workers across the island might be better uniting for their common interests than one section of workers being attached to the British Crown and I even mentioned how republicanism was historically protestant in Ireland in the sense that every major republican figure before the 20th century was protestant. And, straight away, the limitations of his ‘socialism’ were evident. His disposition didn’t change, he remained quite pleasant, but he indicated there was no way protestant workers could/would accept breaking the Union.

Now that the protestant jobs trusts in ship-building and engineering are gone there might be more possibilities for broaching an all-Ireland class-based perspective. But today, even after their materially privileged position vis-a-vis catholic workers has largely gone, the lag in consciousness among protestant workers is still staggering. It’s almost like they’ve gone from having the reactionary views of a labour aristocracy to having the reactionary views of poor whites who feel threatened by black civil rights.

It seems to be that each approach that has been tried has failed so far. The gas-and-water approach, or what Seamus Costello called ‘ring road socialism’, has failed. The Shinners’ current approach of appealing to them as fellow Irish has made no ground, and never will. (Indeed, it strikes me as quite ridiculous to appeal to them on a nationalist basis.)

But an appeal to their material interests – that they would be better-off in an all-Ireland socialist-republic than they are as poor relatives in the ‘United Kingdom’ – if made patiently over and over again, might offer some prospect of advance. I certainly don’t see the point in fiddling about with ‘constitutional arrangements’.

In relation to the PUP, what an odd party it is. Quite progressive on abortion and gay rights and yet closely linked to a sectarian paramilitary organisation historically closer to fascism than to any sort of even liberal/progressive policies.

Philip Ferguson

Like

sonofstan - August 5, 2013

historically closer to fascism than to any sort of even liberal/progressive policies.

Evidence?

And I mean show me actual, institutional links between the UVF and real live fascists, not tendentious stuff about how the OO are ‘like’ the KKK, and they are ‘like’ fascists, QED.

Like


Leave a Reply to Jim Monaghan Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: