Time to take sides

Alex Kane argues that it is important to forget the imperative of Unionist unity and for all Unionists to choose which side they are on. Claims that the demise of pro Agreement Unionism is imminent he believes are overblown.

By Alex Kane

However tempting the prospect may appear, the next few months must not become a time for fence sitting, or scurrying into the political undergrowth. The Ulster Unionist Party is facing its greatest ever crisis and its members, be they public representatives or ordinary grassroots, cannot afford to keep their heads down until a victor has emerged. They must be prepared to take sides, for the outcome of the struggle between Trimble and Donaldson will determine, not simply the fate of the party, but, quite possibly, Northern Ireland�s future within the United Kingdom.

Unionist unity should not be seen as an end in itself, particularly if it is a cobbled-together unity, which the electorate would see through. Everybody knows that the UUP is divided on policy, direction and strategy: a compromise leader, one who is neither Trimble nor Donaldson, is not going to solve the problem. The difficulty is that both sides see their problems, and the solutions, from entirely different perspectives.

I understand those, on both sides, who worry that the party will be eclipsed by the DUP at the next election. But the answer does not lie in attempting to outflank the DUP, because the DUP has done nothing and delivered nothing. Why consider a change of direction and policy, which would, at best, offer only short-term electoral virility, but at the price of long-term political impotence? Yes, the UUP under new management may remain top dog at the next election, but would lack both bark and bite.

According to Mr. Donaldson, only 30% of unionists actually support the Belfast Agreement. Well, start to factor in the figures. That 30% of active unionists (those who have continued to vote over the past three decades) amounts to 120,000 voters. Add on, too, the 150,000 non-active pro-Union votes (those who came out for the 1998 referendum) and the figures rise to 270,000. Plough on, and start to look at the appeal of a modern, pluralist, realist pro-Union party to former Alliance voters and the more moderate wing of the SDLP, and you have somewhere in the region of 300,000 voters to look to for 1st or later preferences.

I happen to believe that there is a huge constituency out there, which unionism can tap into. Hard-line, not-an-inch, �traditional� unionists have got political vehicles to express their points of view; but what about those within the pro-Union community who don�t have such a vehicle? There is surely a duty to win those people back to the ballot box—and the only way to do that is to offer them a political party, and a vision and version of unionism which addresses their concerns.

This showdown has been coming for years, for the divisions within the party predate the negotiation and implementation of the Belfast Agreement. Indeed, the divisions began in the mid-1960s, and the party is suffering from the unwillingness of previous leaders to take it by the scruff of the neck and turn it into a modern political machine. The UUP will go nowhere if it continues this absurd pretence that it is a broad church, so broad, in fact, that it tolerates self-ordained ministers with their own scriptures, song-sheets and congregations.

The most important thing for the leaders of the pro-Union community is to act in such a way as to ensure the maximum possible turnout of their overall vote. They must not be afraid to offer real choices and viable alternatives. They must not be afraid to reach out to former and potential voters. They must not be afraid to agree to a formal parting of the way. The worst possible outcome for the pro-Union cause, would be the destruction of the belief that moderate, pragmatic unionism has a future.

Unionist unity, in essence the unity of the dinosaur, the dodo, the Sash and electoral bluster, will deliver nothing; for it will be structurally top-heavy, institutionally weak and politically confrontational. There is room for unionism in another form and with another face. That is what this whole showdown is about. This time, though, the unfinished business of the past must be settled, and the shackles must be broken; leaving a unionist party capable of looking to the present, rather than languishing in the past.

First published in the Newsletter on Saturday, 5th July 2003

Mick Fealty

Mick is founding editor of Slugger. He has written papers on the impacts of the Internet on politics and the wider media and is a regular guest and speaking events across Ireland, the UK and Europe. Twitter: @MickFealty