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 @ 09:16 AM
Turgon i never said you did not want to share power with Catholics I said the TUV, I feel to be honest with you the TUV if they ever become a power and i feel it is a big if will only create chaos for Unionism they only offer direct rule as there alternative which is not achievable as it really would be joint authority, even Jim Allistair has stated that not all parts of the ST Andrews Agreement are bad and there are good parts for Unionism.i would hope you are big enough to agree with his comments.
PS im not a member of the DUP
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 05:17 PMT&J;,
Fair enough.
Yes the StAA is an advance over the Belfast agreement but a very small incremental one. I do think more can be achieved and should have been achieved by the DUP who negotiated very poorly in my view. I also do not fear Direct rule as much as you do. I think the threats by Hain were exactly that: threats to force the DUP’s hand to save some sort of legacy for a PM forever tarnished by Iraq.I think a better deal can be achieved for unionism and also a better form of government can be achieved for all the people of Northern Ireland. Maybe the TUV cannot achieve that but I am interested in helping them try.
I am sorry for “accusing” you of being a DUP member, I did not mean it as an insult.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 05:45 PMPS,
I have no idea why semicolons keep appearing after your name on my posts. It is a touch ironic in view of Damian O’Loan’s recent criticism of my over use of them.Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 05:49 PMGeorge, Ahern’s hypocrisy is fairly clear in this report:
FIANNA Fail will not seek a coalition with Sinn Fein after the election, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern told a British audience ahead of today’s Downing Street meeting with British Premier Tony Blair.
Mr Ahern, who said Sinn Fein could only come into government when it supported the Irish Army and Gardai and when the IRA was no more, also urged Republicans to take up their seats on Northern Ireland’s Policing Board before the end of this year.
Speaking on BBC television, Mr Ahern challenged Sinn Fein leaders Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to complete the transformation of their movement into a purely political party and to end any association with the IRA.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 06:24 PMTurgon,
You argue that “we need a new agreement” and when I asked what exactly would you have us all agree to you put forward the most reactionary agenda that could only but be rejected out of hand by nationalists.
Are you really aware of where you live or do you have any idea of its recent turbulent history?
And as for: “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.” - the only sane response to that is a cynical chuckle.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 06:27 PMRory,
I fail to see why my suggesting that I would prefer Direct Rule to the current dispensation merits a “cynical chuckle”. For myself I have no political ambition and I do not see why it is inherently wrong to suggest that Direct Rule is preferable to the current arrangements.In terms of recent history, I am indeed aware of it and my whole argument is that a peaceful stable government is not achieved by a sectarian carve up creating a perpetually unstable statelet where unrepentant criminals have power. The current arrangement involves the political paralysis of the mutual veto evidence of which is abundant, the inability to get rid of utterly incompetent ministers, colossal parochialism, the whiff of corruption and nepotism. There is no cabinet government worthy of the name, no proper collective responsibility.
To collapse this arrangement would in my view result in the better governance of Northern Ireland. For it to lead back to violence would mean that one (or more) of those supposedly signed up to peaceful means was actually lying which of itself makes the whole system utterly unstable and implies its long term survival is impossible.
Indeed, Rory, I would submit that anyone who proclaims this government (if it is worthy of being called a government) is effective must be deceived by the fallacy that the alternative to the current arrangement is a return to violence, or alternatively is merely interested in personal political power. They, not I, I suggest deserve a cynical chuckle.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 07:14 PMThere surely must be a growing number of people, and I know many, who think direct rule preferable to the present debacle. Westminster may not be keen on it, but the alternative is permanent stasis, and ultimately, paralysis. There will probably be a role for Dublin informally,so be it, but joint authority cannot be enforced against majority wishes. The standard of debate at Stormont is cringeworthy, and the assembly a total waste of money. Direct rule and more powers to local (7)councils. I don’t buy the TUV stance, Jim McAllister will probably go the way of Bob McCartney, Cedric Wilson, Jim Kilfedder and a host of others, but Turgon speaks sense in his last post.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 07:33 PMLISTEN AND LISTEN CAREFULLY
I am not the first to say this, and I will not be the last. It may well be true that the present situation is inefficient and ineffective. It might be true that Direct rule would be less so. Yet if “Direct Rule” (as it is euphemistically called) is the best state of governance Northern Ireland can democratically hope for, then it is clearly a failed entity. Full stop. End of argument.
This point needs to be seriously borne in mind.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 08:08 PMDriftwood ,
‘There surely must be a growing number of people, and I know many, who think direct rule preferable to the present debacle. Westminster may not be keen on it, but the alternative is permanent stasis, and ultimately, paralysis.’
Now that sounds like a plan i.e stasis followed by paralysis . Can’t see Westminster being overjoyed at having to return with toilet roll in hand once again . Might well provoke actions which would the Union under even more strain than the present arrangement and worse still ‘unionists’ would have little or no say in future dealings between Dublin and London .
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 08:19 PMDriftwood ,
‘There surely must be a growing number of people, and I know many, who think direct rule preferable to the present debacle. Westminster may not be keen on it, but the alternative is permanent stasis, and ultimately, paralysis.’
Now that sounds like a plan i.e stasis followed by paralysis. But you’re probably right . I can’t see Westminster being overjoyed at having to return with toilet roll in hand once again to wipe Unionist rear ends for another ‘failure’ to deal with the political realities on this island . Might well provoke actions which could put the Union under even more strain than the present arrangement and worse still ‘unionists’ would have little or no say in any future dealings between Dublin and London .
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 08:23 PMModerator ,
please delete Post No 9 above - May 17, 2008 @ 09:19 PM
duplicationPosted by on May 17, 2008 @ 08:25 PMTurgon,
‘The current arrangement involves the political paralysis of the mutual veto evidence of which is abundant, the inability to get rid of utterly incompetent ministers, colossal parochialism, the whiff of corruption and nepotism. There is no cabinet government worthy of the name, no proper collective responsibility. ‘
What you say is true both now and historically for NI . Substitute ‘Unionist’ for ‘mutual ‘ before the veto above and you have UUP rule 1920 to 1972 with few exceptions .
What you have to remember is that the present arrangement is all that’s politically possible given the constitutional divide within the NI State and it’s recent troubled history over the past few decades .
Sadly it’s the price that NI has to pay for being what it is -namely a State which in it’s present format should never have existed for it never had the support of the vast majority of it’s population which would have underpinned it’s politics .
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 08:48 PMGreenflag
Good to see you’re still posting on Slugger. Obviously, I haven’t been on in quite a while. Hope you’re keeping well ;-)
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 08:53 PMTurgon,
the problem with excluding SF form governement is that they gave up violence BECAUSE they knew they would get into government - plus the other concessions offered by the British. Any attempt to exclude them - say if the British struck an opportunist deal with the DUP (or TUV) would lead back to mainstream republican violence with considerable support from moderate Nationalists.
But this will never happen because the British have made peace with their enemies (the IRA )and it is time for you and the TUV to do likewise. Electoral success for the TUV would I believe be excellent news for Republicans because it would lead to the complete marginalisation of Unionism and a very nice Plan B.As you like to draw on WW2 History for comparison with current times then consider this - Britian had an alliance with Stalin who was a numerically greater mass killer that Hitler in order to secure peace for (Western) Europe - sometimes you just have to hold your moral nose do and what seems unpalatable for the greater good of your community.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 08:55 PMGoing back to some of Alex Kane’s comments on Vance’s polemic /rant
‘What else could the unionist parties have done? The very fact that the UKUP itself (Vance was Deputy leader of this party) was prepared to contest and then take seats in the Assembly, and that it then imploded and fell apart, is surely testament to the reality that unionism is incapable of delivering some sort of stand alone solution.
Alex Kane seems to be saying here that ‘repartition’ is a no go area for Unionism and neither is Unionist majority rule. In plain English mandatory power sharing with the constitutional ‘enemy’ is all that Unionism will be allowed. Ergo what point ‘Unionism’ at least in the traditional meaning of the term .
‘The real problem now for unionism, as it was in 1921, is that we (the pragmatists) are being forced to defend a structure of government which we never really wanted and which may, in the long-term, prove to be thoroughly bad for us.’
Here I believe Alex Kane has put his finger on the ‘problem’ for longer term ‘unionism’ . There may be a feeling developing perhaps that Unionism the political ideology is no longer ‘good’ for the political , economic or social development of the Unionist people at this point in time and perhaps for some time past .
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 08:59 PMNevin,
That link is to the 2002 election.I thought we were talking about the 2007 election when Sinn Féin had accepted the PSNI and the idea of sitting on policing boards.
The issue in 2007 for Ahern was SF policy more than fitness for government.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 08:59 PMIWSMNWDI’
‘sometimes you just have to hold your moral nose do and what seems unpalatable for the greater good of your community. ‘
Is’nt that the truth:(. Turgon being a religiously minded soul has perhaps’ higher standards or expectations of the ‘political ‘ class than us irreligious or less religious mortals .
Politics is the art of the possible not of the absolute . History has shown us often enough how the ‘morally’ righteous have very often dragged their societies into wars in which their God in the end turned out to be on the opposite (winning ) side !
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 09:08 PMComment after comment, and nobody mentions that “reticent” does NOT mean “reluctant”? So much for the state of schooling in 2008. I’m glad I’ve been dead for more than 200 years.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 09:09 PMNevin ,
‘Sure didn’t Ahern spurn an FF-SF administration.’
He did because he could. We don’t have mandatory power sharing in the Republic because it’s not necessary . The State as a political entity has the support of 99% plus of it’s citizens not an iffy 53% as in NI . I’m sure if Bertie had needed the numbers he’d do a deal with whoever was expedient SF included.
Northern Ireland because of it’s political demographics and it’s fraught constitutional history is as we know unable to conform to a more normal democratic dispensation. We know the reasons for this so there’s no point in digging up the past . Looking ahead as Driftwood puts it there is stasis and paralysis and eventually disappointment for the Assembly ahead . It’s a question mandatory power sharing a la D’Hondt between the DUP and SF or it’s nowt or back to DR .
Although there is much to be dissatisfied with for NI what you have now is as good as it’s ever going to get short of a complete new constitutional arangment or re arrangment . I doubt if either of the sovereign governments have the stomach for another 40 years of political musical chairs as Northern Ireland’s would be politico’s are forced once again to grapple with the 20th century.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 09:26 PMResolve ,
‘Good to see you’re still posting on Slugger.’
Where else ?:)
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 09:30 PM“There may be a feeling developing perhaps that Unionism the political ideology is no longer ‘good’ for the political , economic or social development of the Unionist people at this point in time and perhaps for some time past . “
He probably wasn’t saying that.
He was saying IMO, that what came into being as the Six County State and what has more recently developed, wasn’t really what Unionism, Irish or Ulster, desperately wanted.
The same could be said presumably of the Nationalist & Republican side of things, at least for the North.
I think, ‘work of a generation’ may be the operating future for the UUP, to become what it once was,
I don’t see why that isn’t a viable plan, the alternative is to give up.
I can see stresses and strains on the DUP, so they could get fortunate.
I think Alex’s view is that there will always be enough resistance to nationalism to make ‘loyalism’ at least viable, not pleasant perhaps but viable as a barrier.
Of course I could be wrong.
G.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 10:16 PMAlex Kane on where the DUP has to go:
That reinvention – probably made easier by the overthrow of the Paisley dynasty – will determine the fate and future of unionism and, paradoxically, of the Ulster Unionist Party too.
Might as well adapt the words of Millar on Trimble to answer that one about what could very well happen to the DUP in the coming years:
Here we will see the leading party of unionism laid low by a combination of history and past experience, the constraints imposed by its own sectarian inheritance and instinctive siege mentality, and the self-delusions and inadequacies of its leaderships.
Found this a very interesting paragraph:
The real problem now for unionism, as it was in 1921, is that we (the pragmatists) are being forced to defend a structure of government which we never really wanted and which may, in the long-term, prove to be thoroughly bad for us.
Personally, I find that intellectually dishonest. Unionism, not even pragmatic unionism can wash its hands of the past.
Pragmatic unionism was more than happy to have 50 long years without a single Catholic Minister in government in Northern Ireland. It meant more pragmatic unionist snouts in the trough.
Nobody forced pragmatic unionists into accepting this outrageous state of affairs.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 10:37 PMG,
‘He was saying IMO, that what came into being as the Six County State and what has more recently developed, wasn’t really what Unionism, Irish or Ulster, desperately wanted.’
Okay . So in the past they did’nt get what they wanted (which was what exactly ? ) and today it’s the same again ?
‘The same could be said presumably of the Nationalist & Republican side of things, at least for the North. ‘
True for the North. Less so as regards the Republic .
‘I think, ‘work of a generation’ may be the operating future for the UUP, to become what it once was,’
There is no going back to what it once was . The world yes even NI has moved on even if it sometimes appears it has’nt .
‘the alternative is to give up.’
I know . Sometimes it’s the path to a better future . Perhaps politics is not for unionists i.e democratic politics . Look at the track record since 1920 . Not a whole lot to show for it eh ?
‘I can see stresses and strains on the DUP, so they could get fortunate. ‘So can I but no matter which Unionist faction is the majority Unionist representation those stresses and strains are not going away -not for the DUP -UUP nor TUV nor any other possible Unionist party even a ‘united one’
‘I think Alex’s view is that there will always be enough resistance to nationalism to make ‘loyalism’ at least viable, not pleasant perhaps but viable as a barrier.’
As a barrier to what ? Loyalism is not viable per se. If it was we would have had ‘repartition’ a generation ago . Loyalism can be a wrecker no question but they will be the worst off when the dust eventually settles down .
I think Alex Kane is looking into an abyss of political and economic stasis and paralysis going forward . I can understand that . The only true alternatives which could make a difference for the longer term prospects of the Unionist people on this island are Repartition into a smaller Unionist State or amalgamation into a UI . They are the only two avenues which would /could shock ‘unionists ‘ into a ‘new ‘ other future . Direct Rule by comparison would be just a long drawn out lingering rerun of the political uncertainty of the past two decades . The noose would still be around the ‘unionist ‘neck except the trapdoor mechanism would be in the hands of Westminster .
good night .
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 10:51 PMTurgon, I would refer you to the following article…
http://www.lisburntoday.co.uk/news/WAR-OF-WORDS-BETWEEN-COUNCILLORS.4018325.jp
Now if a TUV counciller were to say “If he cannot say anything good about Stoneyford then he should say nothing. I am sick and tired of hearing about all this bad news about Stoneyford. Paul Butler is trying to intimidate the people of Stoneyford by these outrageous statements”, then surely it must mean that the poor loyalists of Stoneyford are being misrepresented and intimidated by the big bad terrorist Paul Butler.
But hold on…
Last week, a 12-year-old boy was attacked by a group of men in the village.
The boy’s friend was also assaulted during the incident in Dam Lane.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7152959.stm
Now, I’m confused, because this Cecil Calvert (TUV counciller lets not forget) says “If he cannot say anything good about Stoneyford then he should say nothing.”
But the BBC said this: Last week, a 12-year-old boy was attacked by a group of men in the village.
Turgon help! Calvert’s been removed from the party right? Because like you know, your lot don’t go for terrorists or their sympathesists do you? You hate them!
Or perhaps this could be your first actual policy! Hush up attacks on 12 year old Taigs.
Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 11:24 PMWhy can’t we be treated as part of the UK in the same way as the Isle of Wight? So, we are off the mainland as are other parts of the UK (including Gib) I think the vast majority of so called nationalists and unionists here would accept Gibraltar status. We all know we are part of the United Kingdom and proud to be so. Where is the problem?
If a few, very few, roman catholic/republican terrorists object, we can go for Isle of Man/Channel Island status.If they object further, they are free to move to the socialist paradise in the Republic of Southern Ireland. :)
Much ado about nothing. At least direct rule would get rid of Ruane. Something noone (with an IQ above 9)on this little patch of earth could object to.Posted by on May 17, 2008 @ 11:27 PM
