Saturday, May 17, 2008
Unionism: pragmatism versus idealism
Alex Kane has a very interesting piece on the Newsletter website this week. It is a book review of Frank Millar’s book on Trimble and David Vance’s book “Unionism Decayed.” The whole article is well worth reading but one paragraph in particular stood out for me:
“What they document is the clash between pragmatic unionism (which can be summed up as making the best of unpleasant political realities) and moral high-ground unionism (the view that almost anything is better than terrorist appeasement). The pragmatists have carried the day, so far. Yet, to be brutally honest, I acknowledge that as a matter of fact, rather than as a matter of pride.”
Although I am extremely reticent to claim the high moral ground for an anti agreement unionist position, as that ground is very likely to be found to be a high horse instead; Kane encapsulates the dilemma which many unionists may feel over the current dispensation. Many unionists who support the agreement do so with a heavy heart, there are still massive misgivings regarding the current process. Incidentally I am sure this position is mirrored within nationalism / republicanism.
Supporters of the agreement (or maybe acceptors would be a better term for many of them?) will often assent to all the criticisms made of the current agreement and then, with varying degrees of unhappiness, say that they still support it. Even here on slugger we have self proclaimed unionists from positions as disparate as Jo to Bigger Picture and many, many in between clearly not delighted by what has happened but willing to accept it for varying reasons but essentially either because it was a necessary price to end the conflict and / or because it was better than the alternatives.
Whilst I do not in any way impugn the moral rectitude of those who make this argument, I would submit that this is a very flawed approach and one which is not going to help build a civic society here. The lack of an alternative is also a very valid criticism albeit one which Jim Allister has begun trying to address.
Alex Kane’s last comment is also extremely valid and on it (as well as other issues) may depend the future of the agreement, the UUP, DUP and the TUV: “The electoral strength of the TUV… has yet to be properly gauged; but I’m increasingly of the opinion that it is much stronger than any of us think.” Then again of course I want to believe that.
Turgon @ 10:16 AM
I find that the sense of ‘collective self’ within unionism has diminished, that might seem so obvious as not to be remarkable,
but I have difficulty defining the moment it happened, not being a biological unionist, the negative epiphany didn’t happen to me,
I still can’t put my finger on it, the precise moment, when it all went wrong for the UUP. I don’t seem to have that vision that a biological nionist might have.
G.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 10:36 AMTurgon, your last post about the possibility of returning to violence - in which you mention how loyalists can initiate it - and your on-going advocation of the latest medieval-minded party to hit our shores, TUV, seem to have an underlying threat that certain people are already getting ready to combat any future progression being made on our island.
What’s your motive for these posts?
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 11:02 AMSama,
I am opposed to the current agreement and have always stated this. I am also opposed to violence, again something I state extremely frequently. The comment about loyalists having started violence was merely a statement of a fact, a fact I am very ashamed of in that it originated in my community, but a fact none the less.
My motives are that I do not regard the current process as a stable one and I do not think that we can say with any confidence that violence will not return. We cannot be held accountable for the actions of our forefathers but equally we cannot force our successors or even our current fellow citizens to do as we would wish. If violence restarts I will be appalled and disappointed, I just have no confidence that it is gone for good. I hope to be wrong.
In terms of my advocacy of a TUV position; mine is a non violent political position which is that we need a new agreement with a complete renegotiation of how we govern ourselves or indeed are governed.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 11:12 AMThe stress in the system is that a lot of loyalists (which is a type of Unionism) will feel as if they’ve been sold down the river,
quite a few people have articulated a violent backlash at some point. What’s motive got to do with it? Some Protestants feel as if they’ve been impaled at Stormont by the DUP.
Being opposed to the last ditch, to the IRA, is not in itself, wrong, or not understandable
if we can have pro-BNP riots in England with substantial pockets of support, what is in store for us when the people who are upset have access to weapons and home made frag grenades.
I don’t think, speaking as a Catholic, that the DUP/SF relationship at Stormont,
is my best interests, and I suspect there are many Protestants for similar or different reasons, who feel the same way.
To see in the future, that it might still go violently pear-shaped, is hardly wishing for it to happen,
G.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 11:14 AMGregory, the pan-Unionist and pan-Nationalist families are both very ‘broad churches’, more so with Unionism in that there are so many denominations. Each collective has come together as a response to the vexed constitutional question rather than in the style of the left/right combinations that appear elsewhere.
London and Dublin have both acted out of enlightened self-interest; their nimbyism has led to both the appeasement of the loyalist and republican godfathers and to the associated leaching of political support for the UUP-Alliance-SDLP spectrum.
I’m coming across supposedly upright citizens who now go to the local paramilitary godfathers to have matters pertaining to policing and justice speedily resolved.
I’ve also noted the police and other agents of the state combining with the local godfathers in the development of community projects. IMO this does huge damage to democracy as the ‘chosen few’ will get ‘stay out of jail’ passes. Unsurprisingly, these politically directed processes - eg restorative justice programs - would not be tolerated in the rest of these two islands.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 11:16 AM“we need a new agreement”
Turgon, the present arrangements suit London and Dublin so who can this agreement be done with? Can you imagine our local parties coming together to endorse my proposals on devolution under shared sovereignty alongside the merger of strands 2 and 3?
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 11:22 AM“we need a new agreement”
But there’s nothing stopping that other than convincing a majority from within both traditions to agree to whatever it is you want.
Now what exactly is it that you would have them all agree to, Turgon?
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 12:19 PM‘“we need a new agreement” ‘
It took almost 40 years to get to the present settlement . The political demographics of Northern Ireland are what they are and are not changing anytime soon . As for Unionism in decay ? . It has been in decay in Ireland since the mid 19th century . The pace has just quickened since 1969. What Unionism now has left is a ‘stay’ of execution.
There is no point in appealing to any high ‘moral ‘ ground for Unionism . It’s just not credible . All that is possible for the foreseeable furture is to deal with the ‘unsatisfactory’ settlement in a pragmatic way and if that means having to make the best of unpleasant political realities then that’s it .
The Northern Nationalist and Republican population had to put up with the ‘unpleasant ‘ some would say very unpleasant political reality 1920 through 1972 and beyond . Why should Unionists be any different . Should ‘Unionism’ find that the political unpleasantness warrants a violent ‘revolt’ they can look back to the Republican example of 1969 and see where that led .
Realistically as I’ve said before the Vances of Northern Ireland can only offer a resumption of widespread sectarian violence ending in de facto and probably de jure repartition . If that’s really what Unionists want then theres not much that Irish Nationalists can do to stop them .
All the high falutin talk about the absence of a proper democratic opposition etc etc and ex terrorists in government is neither here nor there .
Northern Ireland as it is presently constituted cannot be a normal democracy and . Best get used to it.BTW the TUV don’t have an answer either so I would’nt waste any time with them !
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 01:01 PM“ex terrorists in government is neither here nor there .”
You talk a lot of high falutin nonsense, Greenflag. Sure didn’t Ahern spurn an FF-SF administration. As Adams might have put it, “They don’t want a Fenian about the place”.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 01:52 PMG,
‘I still can’t put my finger on it, the precise moment, when it all went wrong for the UUP.’
Taking the long finger view for ‘Unionism ‘ 1920 would be the moment. For the UUP Faulkner’s demise after the Sunningdale collapse in 1974 and Trimble’s loss of majority to the DUP was the coup de grace.
Sic transit gloria.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 01:57 PMNevin
Sure didn’t Ahern spurn an FF-SF administration. As Adams might have put it, “They don’t want a Fenian about the place”.
Who offered Ahern a SF-FF administration? Gerry Adams did say he expected phone calls after the election but when they didn’t come I don’t think he made any himself. So there was nothing to spurn.
In the south it’s all about numbers and the numbers didn’t work out for SF.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 02:46 PM“In the south it’s all about numbers and the numbers didn’t work out for SF."”
I hope it stays that way.
I was quite surprised, the illusion of competence dogs SF here in the Bailiwick of Bother.
They’re quite dumb.
G.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 02:53 PM“Realistically as I’ve said before the Vances of Northern Ireland can only offer a resumption of widespread sectarian violence ending in de facto and probably de jure repartition .”
You mean start it, by stirring it up, and then condemn it, would appear to be the traditional unionist voice.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 03:04 PMWill it, could it, ever be possible for the current political party-break up in Northern Ireland (i.e. primarily between Unionist and Nationalist) to disappear to make way for a break-up more typical of effective governance (i.e. along economic and social lines) ?
It really is this which is holding us back. Who, really, does a conservative (or economically free-market orientated) nationalist voter have to vote for? Likewise, who does a working class, socialist Unionist voter really have to vote for?
Voicing these concerns is rudimentary the to point of stating superfluous truisms, and I don’t wish to appear as some naive and starry-eyed idealist with a dream! Yet, these aforementioned deficiencies are ultimately the source of the current situation’s impracticality and those which render its long-term viability unlikely (at best).
Green Flag, I know you have consistently advocated repartition as the only viable alternative. Whilst I agree with these sober reflections, to me they are too resigned to a pessimistic outlook for me to adopt. What we need to do is continually re-think potential improvements of the current situation as it stands.
But is this even possible? I ask myself that question, and I do not like the answer I come up with. I have never said this before in my life, but I am starting to think that an all-Ireland political solution is inevitable, and desirable. The sooner we all realize this the better.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 03:09 PMDoesn’t it all come back to the same old, to the death, arguments about wallpaper when the house plans haven’t been passed yet? You can have all your GFAs and referenda that you like but until one side ‘wins’, the stalemate will remain.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 03:20 PMI would love to know from Tugon how he thinks the TUV can get a better deal, it seems from were i am standing the TUV just dont want to share power with Catholics full stop?
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 04:15 PMWill it, could it, ever be possible for the current political party-break up in Northern Ireland (i.e. primarily between Unionist and Nationalist) to disappear to make way for a break-up more typical of effective governance (i.e. along economic and social lines) ?
It really is this which is holding us back.
Which is basically saying let’s make Northern Ireland work, which means working to cement the union.
Which will be countered by what’s wrong with striving to make Northern Ireland work in a way that will facilitate unification?
It will be a case of unionists attempting the former and nationalists the latter.
Just one of the resultant joys of having a partition imposed on the island of Ireland by force rather than democratic will.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 04:24 PMthat’s right truth and justice.
When Henry94 finessed David Vance of ATW on terrorism, he asked
“So would you be ok with SDLP as the voice of the nationalist majority”
The answer was
“No, as they have a united ireland agenda”At least we discovered that was the real reason for not supporting power-sharing.
Finally the IRA smokescreen lie was exposed.They don’t want a taig about the place.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 04:46 PMHenry94,
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 04:52 PMTruth and justice,
I am not a TUV spokesperson but in terms of a better deal.Well I guess not having a mandatory coalition, having genuine cabinet government with proper collective responsibility rather than collective responsibility to initiate something but not to stop something as we have now.
Maybe ending the mutual veto but having alternative safe guards such as weighted majorities. Possibly not changing the system so that the largest single party selects the first minister instead of the largest group (as the DUP cynically did for intra unionist blackmail reasons). Maybe having a proper opposition.
In terms of how to get it: well how about avoiding “hot house” negotiations with artificial deadlines, not being bullied by the spectre of a mythical Plan B (as the DUP of the past refused to be bullied). Maybe having a leader who was not so easily flattered every time Blair or Bush spoke to him. Avoiding one to one conversations without the other leadership members would help. Not involving relatively minor constituency issues in the midst of major negotiations might also be a clever trick.
In terms of sharing power with Catholics, I have repeatedly said that I support power sharing: I would invite you to find the point where I have opposed it. I have no problem sharing power with nationalists but I do have a major problem sharing power with members and ex members of terrorist organisations.
Essentially T&J;I want much the same thing as you want, namely a stable NI within the union. I just feel that your party leadership, blinded by the lust for personal power negotiated extremely poorly achieving little better than Trimble did. You may feel that you can regain some of the lost ground within the current system. If you can I will be delighted; however, I doubt you will manage to achieve this and I feel that a new party standing outside the current system is the best way to achieve this. We will have to await the judgement of the electorate. Until then you and I can both argue your case as best we can and see what people think.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 05:10 PM“the spectre of a mythical Plan B”
Turgon, would you describe the earlier Anglo-Irish Agreement as mythical? How do imagine the current Joint Secretariat spends its time?
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 05:32 PMNevin,
Sure didn’t Ahern spurn an FF-SF administration. As Adams might have put it, “They don’t want a Fenian about the place”.If you replaced “Fenian” with “Marxist” you might have a point.
Explaining the decision, Ahern said:
“Even a radical overhaul of Sinn Fein economic policy would have little real credibility after 35 years of Marxism....
I believe Sinn Fein are agents of poverty and disadvantage.
I believe the very notion of Sinn Fein in government would lead to a flight of investment, which is untenable in a small open economy.”
Michael McDowell, on the other hand, might have fit the bill as he said there was no room in democratic government for any party or movement which did not support the police and the rule of law.
Funnily enough, the DUP’s Nigel Dodds said at the time of Ahern’s statement:
“I have little doubt that the same Bertie Ahern will be at the forefront of pressure from Dublin on unionists to accept what they will not.”
Indeed Nigel.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 05:36 PMTurgon
You say you want democracy and then in the next breath you want to take away the rights of others to vote for whom they choose. You can not have it both ways full stop. Either everyone has rights or no one does. You are essentially advocating the return of prod superiority with catholics having little or no right to vote.
As for a new deal it is equally impossible, it would require catholics/nationalist to be able to trust your community, which is for now numerically superior, to govern fairly and evenly. There is no evidence available showing that unionists are even remotely capable of this. As a point of fact it is only the nationalist dominated councils and in particular the SF dominated councils that operate on an equality basis sharing the executive positions on a fair and rotating basis
To put it plainly Turgon despite all your suplication and self depricating talk the only thing you advocate is croppy lie down, that is not a tenable or likely position.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 05:38 PMSteve,
Where have I said that? I only say that I am opposed to sharing power with SF at this time and indeed for the foreseeable future. Hence, if I were in some form of leadership position I would not enter power sharing with SF. That prevents no one voting for them. It merely means that I would not enter government with them. If the choice is between my party being in government with SF or my party not being in government at all: I choose not being in government. That is perfectly democratic.Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 05:47 PMOne thing is sure the current system isn’t working, it is only staying together as the alternative is the collapse of all agreements.
Maybe that is a good thing as at least there is a common objective that unites the parties.
An alternative however could be to introduce a qualified majority of 60% in the executive, excluding the First and Deputy First Ministers, with at least one member of each background supporting. This would give rise to interesting options for voting e.g. UUP+SDLP+SF could defeat the DUP and DUP+UUP+SDLP could defeat SF.
It would also allow for an opposition in the executive and also in the assembly and could stop the cosy DUP / SF axis that has appeared.
Can’t see SF and the DUP going for it though as it would break their current monoply on the proceedings.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 05:58 PM
