Future positive – David Ervine

We met with David Ervine last week to talk about unionism and what it particularly means to him. We then went on to look to the future, exploring the question of whether Loyalist paramilitaries can play an active part of the solution.

What does the Union mean to you?

Beyond the legal definitions of the Union, I think that most of it is about my emotional understanding and my human sense of relating to the concept of the Union without being frightened by the Union. It offers a process of metamorphosis in the modern world, which can bring politics closer to people within the nations who make up that union. It does not need to mean a whole lot more to me. I don�t need to think about it too much. I want to get up in the morning and want to wonder if I am late for work; to live on the same basis as the Frenchman who has his sense of belonging or the German or the Swiss. I want the normalcy of living in a society, which is democratically correct, has its checks and balances and ensures that there is a viable or a reasonable life for all of the people who live within it.

How does it affect your life from day to day?

I wish it didn�t. But the concept of United Kingdom or United Ireland, which are considered to be diametrically opposed, has had a huge effect on my life, like many others in this community we live in. One would hope that if the challenge, or the siege if you like, were lifted, that we would all have different ideas about the nationality and indeed the nation.

What would you say are the bare elements of Unionism as a political philosophy?

I think that Unionism is essentially a statement of identity, of belonging. A statement of ownership and I am sure that there are those that could chastise me and say that of course they all have political elements. Socialism, communism, fascism are all, I think, political philosophies; but I am not too sure that Unionism is a political philosophy.

In what ways does that contrast with Irish Nationalism and Republicanism?

I don�t think that Irish Nationalism is a philosophy either. Again, it is a statement of identity. I think Nationalism is divisive whether it is British Nationalism or Irish Nationalism and some day we will move away from the concepts of nationalism and enter a modern world of partnerships with people with different attitudes and different interests. Where we are doing it in different arenas on a regular basis. We are doing it when we consider war against Iraq, with the United States as a partner and in the European Union for economic and social benefit. We create an amalgam in order to make a difference and change. Nationalism is, I think, a destructive process, contained within which there is a concept of superiority and therefore inferiority.

And the principle challenges that you feel Unionism is likely to meet in the 21st century?

I think that Unionism�s biggest single challenge is that in fact Nationalism is not the vibrant and vigorous challenge to Unionism it imagines it to be. Unionism�s own inadequacy is its downfall, that and refusing to believe in its own power and the legitimacy of its own arguments. We almost prefer to function with the siege mentality, allowing ourselves to be forced into siege rather than standing proudly and sensibly and saying I am an Irish Citizen of the United Kingdom – what is wrong with that? Of course the problem is that we are imbued by a series of value mechanisms that are sometimes falsely wrapped up with the concept of the Union. Why is it that we believe that all Protestants are Unionists and why is it that we believe that all Catholics are Irish Nationalists?

That leads me onto the next question, within the context of present day Northern Ireland is it possible for unionism to appeal across the religious divide?

We are imbued with a set of values that are perhaps, for instance, considered to be anti-Catholic. Since we may have a concept of a preying Irish Government, we have concluded in our minds that we need to be anti-Irish. So if the definition of Unionism, as many outside of unionism, understand it to be, is to be anti-Catholic and anti-Irish, it is a destructive thought process for the person who is living that life. But, it is also destructive for those think that that is what we are. We have got to break out of the siege and stop trying to sell Unionism as a philosophy. Sell Unionism as a methodology within which we can live our lives effectively, economically, socially and culturally and realign our politics along those lines, and find common purpose and cause with people on the basis of issues. That is the stuff of building nations. Maybe when we have transformed our politics from one of a sectarian nature to a more class structured politics, I think we will see a completely different concept of the Union. But that will require great bravery from us in refusing to be driven only by old value systems that rely very heavily on fear. Why do we hate people we don�t know? And why haven�t we gone out to find out who they are? Why haven�t we made their house warm? Why haven�t we treated them as we would treat ourselves? And the truth, you know, when we diminish them, without realising it we, within our own sense of nationalism or superiority, whether fuelled by religion or a concept of a big nation versus a little nation or the United Kingdom versus the United Ireland, we have to ask how we have diminished ourselves?

Are the terms British and Irish complimentary or mutually exclusive?

The first time I ever went to the United States, someone in the audience in the dialogue we were having thought it was ludicrous that I could be British and Irish. Then we asked how many in this room are Irish American and 95% of the people in the room put their hands up. So it is OK to live 3000 miles apart and be Irish American and but is not alright to be British Irish. There is no purity these days. We are long past the concept that we are a purity of the Scots or the English or the Welsh or the Irish, rather we are an amalgam of many things. I am profoundly both British and Irish and those who have to deal with me have to take me on those terms. Why should I be ashamed of that? Why should there be some sense of me being less of a human being because I advocate a political process that can incorporate all aspects of my life?

Beyond the issues around the constitution, what areas of politics is unionism well placed to take a lead on?

We are the largest group of people in Northern Ireland – I think that gives us a responsibility. And first we have to question ourselves. One could argue that there has been a lot of questioning going on with the new order but perhaps not yet enough. I sense we live around a market place and in that market place, when questions are asked about or judgements are made of us, they land like exocet missiles. We are not strong enough to take the criticisms, or make the challenge because we keep running away from them. The questioning process is only really valid when it�s Unionists that are asking questions in unity saying; who are we? And what is it we want? Where are we going? I think those questions in themselves will lead to a vigorous and valuable union. We need to embrace those who believe differently from us, whether Catholic Nationalist or Republican. We need to show them who we really are. In fact, I don�t know that anyone has ever seen us, and I am not sure that we have seen us as who we really are and what we are capable of. We need to take away the fear element; and stop frightening ourselves.

How might the various independent strands of unionism be reconciled?

In many ways the individual strands of unionism are reconciled in so much as that they all advocate the retention of the union. But then what type of union would that be? And that might be where we differ. The truth of the matter is, and they better get used to it, that Unionists are not the only people to have an opinion on the Union. Other people have an opinion on the Union and other people with whom we must co-habit; other people, with whom we must share a plot of land, have opinions. To be strident and brutal in the advocacy of our Unionism, now, is counter productive. If we want them to share our concept of value in the Union then we have to look for a Unionism that accommodates them. That means that if all strands of Unionism are not prepared to do that, then perhaps there is no meeting of minds and the self-destruction process will continue. The crux may be that we will be judged on our concept of democracy within the Union, or at least our portion of the Union and on how we treat our minority. This was the point that Carson made to us, and which then fell on deaf ears.

How do you see Unionism developing in the future, and maybe tied in with that, what might be the essential elements for a successful Unionist vision be?

My children will deal with the Unionism hugely different from anything that I have ever known. It will metamorphose, and effectively become less important. But within that there will be a way of life that is spectacular in its difference to the way other divided societies function. But there must be a process of building allegiances around long-term issues of employment, education, environment and health. All those things which will totally change the concept of Union in the future; the border won�t matter. And there are more concepts in the Union than simply an Ulster Protestants view. There is the United Kingdom; there is the European Union. All these degrees of partnerships and exposure to each other will change relationships and those relationships will diminish the extremes. Young people twenty, thirty years from now will be coming out of school and looking for careers and actually thinking �politics may not be a bad career�.

How do you see your party, the P.U.P., developing and widening its appeal?

The more there is bad news, the less likely the P.U.P. is to develop. Against a backdrop of angst and bitterness, I don�t know that we can offer anything other than a holding position; I don�t think we can develop our policies against a backdrop of negativity. But if there is to be a calm in our society and if you like a crossing the divide, a realignment of politics in our society, then the P.U.P.�s position would change.

How do you see the paramilitaries developing on the loyalists side; are they going to be a positive or negative influence in their communities?

I think the metamorphosis of paramilitaries has begun. In my experience so far it usually breaks into three distinct groups. There are those who have gone home because their services are no longer required. Then there are others who take a view that �if I was prepared to �die for my country�, then I am prepared to work for it�. They are trying to become involved and to do development and are in the process of genuinely helping the community. Then there is the third group, who bring alive the old adage that �patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel�. They are a matter now for the policing service and a society to take on and deal with. But it is not all bad news. Paramilitarism is dying and will wither on the vine. But I believe in dispersal not disbandment because I think they are too frightened to disband. We may look at them very much as macho men, but they are frightened by change. Aren�t we all? What you will see is a transformation process and I think we have to assist it on its way. It is a symptom of the state of our nation. If you went out there and did a vox pop, I would be shocked if you could find anyone who felt they were complicit in the current state of the nation, and yet we are all complicit in one way or another. That may mean that we have to invest in people, we may have to invest more heavily in victims and people who have truly suffered. What are we going to do about them will have to be given serious consideration. It is not about legitimising, but accepting them home perhaps, with a very clear set of guidelines and codes of conduct that would have to be adhered to. I have no objections to people making the rule of law wholly and completely effective; there is no room within the rule of law for paramilitarianism.

Tied in with that, can the PUP, UVF, UDA become leaders in their own community?

Yes, I think they can. They are already leaders in their own community. The question is can they be leaders for good. Can they be leaders for positivity? Absolutely. There is no better person to create change, to tell a young advocate of violence or anger, to say, �son or young woman, please listen to my story, don�t do this�. Something that made me feel ill when I heard it, was when a young person was asked on the Shankill Road what they wanted to do, they wanted to be a paramilitary leader. Their ambition in life was not to go to university, not to have an apprenticeship; their ambition in life was to be a paramilitary. Now that is shocking in the extreme, but maybe it tells us the possibility of opportunity that they feel they have, if that is all they want to be.

Some people suggest that Loyalists always simply react to what the Republicans do. Is that something you see them having done?

They have been reacting. I think they do need to become proactive. I think all Unionists need to be proactive about who they are, with a simple recognition that it is absolutely alien, alien to human existence to be non-sectarian. It is not alien to human existence to be anti sectarian. Being non-sectarian would almost suggest that we are nothing. We are all something, but being anti sectarian means that you are with vigour and with honour and integrity, the thing that you are and the celebratory processes are about you but not are meant to hurt anyone else, it is not meant to damage anyone else, they are about my celebrating about who I am and I will honour your celebrating who you are. Is it proactivity to be worried about the interface nightmares that exist or is it to diminish it so that people have a decent quality of life? It may be in the first instance they simply turn their faces away from each other but in the longer term that won�t do. There has to be interaction, there has to be clear acceptance of each other�s viability and legitimacy. That is where Unionism has to lead, and where Loyalism has to be proactive and stop being afraid of the dark. Talk to people, know people, experience people and recognise that the fears, hopes and dreams and desires that they have are very similar, if not exactly the same as our own. Then you make common cause with them.