Talking about Reconciliation …

After last week’s Political Studies Association (PSA) conference in Belfast, I asked if ‘reconciliation’ was making a tentative return to public debate in Northern Ireland. Well, the R-word got some more airing over the weekend, with Sinn Fein’s Declan Kearney making it a centrepiece at the Easter commemoration at Milltown Cemetery in west Belfast.

Though he doesn’t mention Kearney’s address, Brian Walker notes that there have been plenty of ‘soft politics’ over the Easter period and speculates that the DUP and Sinn Fein may be adjusting – out of necessity – to deeper yearnings for change within the populace. Or at least that’s how I interpret Walker’s post!

Echoing other Easter speeches by Sinn Fein politicians, Kearney said:

We can stop history repeating itself by leading on the priority for an inclusive reconciliation process, in which all sections of our society listen and engage unconditionally with each another, and on the basis of equality and mutual respect.

It was also Kearney, writing in the republican newspaper An Phoblacht, who encouraged republicans to say ‘sorry’:

“Regardless to the stance of others, we should recognise the healing influence of being able to say sorry for the human effects of all actions during the armed struggle.”

There’s not much new in Kearney’s call to say ‘sorry’ – for some time some republicans have been willing to apologise for causing hurt. But this is never accompanied by an admission that they believe the ‘armed struggle’ was unjustified or morally wrong.

For some unionists, this type of apology is hollow, and misses out on the all-important ingredients of confession or repentance, as illustrated in these comments from the DUP’s Jeffrey Donaldson:

“Whilst our armed forces have opened their books on the past and played their part, those who waged the terror on our streets have kept silent about their activities,” he said.

“We don’t need a truth commission to hear the truth. We just need the people who were involved in terrorism to confess their wrongdoing and own up to their part in the past.”

Such comments might indicate that republicans and unionists are still talking past each other, but this may not necessarily be the case. Writing on her own blog, Rev Lesley Carroll, a member of the Consultative Group on the Past, offers this interpretation of Kearney’s speech:

What precisely does that [engage unconditionally] mean? Almost as soon as the word unconditional comes out of a Republican mouth a Unionist moral backbone has straightened and is worried that this means accepting that some things which should not have been done were tolerable if not acceptable in the context as set out by Republicans in their particular analysis of the conflict. So to be unconditional to the Unionist mind actually becomes a condition and the condition is to accept a Republican analysis. If that is what Kearney means then already the project has failed. I would suggest that there is another way to interpret this.

… So when Kearney asks for people to ‘engage unconditionally’ he is asking for an openness in the approach to dialogue – an openness that accepts there is an analysis which makes it possible to justify the struggle. That doesn’t mean that anyone has to fully embrace the analysis or even partly embrace it. It doesn’t mean that people have to no longer be critical of the analysis but it does mean that when Republicans begin to talk about what they did and why they did it the first response of Unionists is not condemnation but listening and unpacking what is being said in an attempt to get it all out on the table so that it can be viewed from every angle. The listening and engaging may be tight-lipped but the willingness to view the story from every angle is where the critical engagement takes place and that’s why it all needs to be told.

Lest she be mistaken for saying that ‘listening’ is all about being open to the republican point of view, Rev Carroll also makes some astute observations about listening to unionists:

Unionists have important things to say which they feel have never been heard. Those things are related to the injustices of the violence against them and the effects on their community identity and infrastructure. They have to do with covert, disciplined, what are seen as excessive campaigns of purging from border areas and they have to do with not being permitted to speak these out as new institutions were put in place. The Kearney call has to equally apply to Unionists – they have to be listened to in a way which allows them to put it all out on the table without judgement and dismissal being the first response. So how Unionist’s speak in the first movement of the new relating is every bit as important as how Republicans speak and how Republicans listen is every bit as important as how Unionists listen. There is an opportunity for Unionists here and it is one not to be missed.

I think that reconciliation discourses can be used constructively in Northern Ireland’s public sphere. The varied responses to republicans’ tentative attempts to start talking about reconciliation illustrate, I think, an opening up of space for people to start talking about what reconciliation means from their perspective, as seen in Donaldson and Carroll’s comments.

Of course fine words need to be backed up by even better actions. Political parties’ commitments to reconciliation will be tested when it comes to devising practical policies that can tackle the legacies of the past – policies to address the trauma still suffered by victims and survivors, and the continued economic deprivation in areas that were most affected by the violence.



  • The out first thing this morning to demonstrate against another’s culture at the Ardoyne. Words completely meaningless. Though in carefully talking about ‘a section’ of unionist opinion Sinn Fein can continue to demonise other sections and keep the green bile churning. It is not the past SF have problems dealing with, it is happily stuck in that comfort zone.

  • andnowwhat

    Urban lodges wouldn’t know their culture if it slapped them in the face with the bellow of bagpipe. I know a few people from the Orange tradition who will have nothing to do with them and a (traditional) loyalist on another site agrees with me regarding urban (and a very few rural) lodges are out of sinc with real tradition.

    The silly games that the order plays regarding that band named after a loyalist murderer (akin to the nonsense the GAA play over the Lynch thing) fools nobody as does the crap they played over the Ssh/psalm last year in E Belfast.

    Pissing in the streets of Harbeton are no more culture than eejits dressing kids up as IRA men. Whether it’s some kid piping in Carrick or another playing his fiddle in Maddens, it should be organic and be there for itself, not to be bastardised by bigots of whatever ilk.

  • Reconciliation is only really of people who need to be reconciled. It is a word which just does not feature in my vocabulary……but the curious spectacle of Sinn Féin leading the charge to be reconciled has I believe left mainstream nationalism behind.
    Like all nationalists, I have some black sheep in my family…a great granfather who served in the old RIC. Coincidently I was looking thru some of the info I had gathered on him including a summary of his service record from the “RUC Museum”.
    But he is very much an exception……in a family that was/is passively but mainstream nationalist of the Seamus Heaney “be advised my passports glass of ours was raised to toast the queen” variety.

    While it is certainly true that the leadership of the Republican Movement included 1950s men and all that, it is also equally true that many of the leading lights of the modern republican movement have no real “republican” pedigree and were unlikely champions of Irish republicanism, GAA or Irish language. Certainly many mainstream nationalists of the the described by Seamus Heaney would have scratched their heads at the sight of some Paddy-Come-Latelys.

    To some extent Sinn Féins enthusiasm for reconciliation is out of step with mainstream nationalism, who see SF turning somersaults to faciliate the new “reconciliation narrative”. From being the champions of not “stooping down”, SF are showing signs of stooping down lower than any nationalist party more identified with so doing.

    Three reasons …..they have a need to be reconciled having perhaps done things requiring reconciliation…..opportunism…….and they are in many cases the very “nationalists” most likely to have a faded WW1 or WW2 photograph on the mantle. The very opposite of the nationalists described by Seamus Heaney.

    Of course I have lived among the nationalist community for 59 years. I know it.
    I wont pretend that I know the unionist community. But perhaps there are mainstream unionists who find the DUP a mirror image of SF. That the “reconciliation” vocabulary is ill suited (or perhaps ONLY suited) to the party who wrapped itself in the Ulster “flag” and shouted “no surrender” the loudest.

    Mainstream nationalists and mainstream unionists rallied to SF and DUP after 1998 in the fervent belief that they were less likely to “compromise” than SDLP or UUP.
    While many will welcome SF and DUP conversion to lets get alongerism (and whether it is sincere is open to question) many (outside their core support but who gave them the benefit of the doubt at successive elections) will feel a sense of concern.
    SF and DUP rush to the centre ground exposes a flank to be exploited by SDLP and UUP.

  • Brian Walker

    Gladys, I hope my post wasn’t too hard to interpret. Remote from the action, I’ve simply been noting a reduction in the energy of sectarian point scoring in political rhetoric and a swing towards the rhetoric of reconciliation. What that amounts to remains to be seen. Nor am I quite sure what a policy of reconciliation amounts to. It seems to me so far to be a benign ideology in search of a political programme.Good luck in the search, What I’m quite sure of is that communal politics can’t easily be replaced.

    What do people want? Peace and personal security? Blunting the impact of austerity? Consumerism? All of the above. VIgorous social scientific investigations beyond the Life and Times surveys might tell us more. Political discourse based on analysis of the factual information buried within the organs of government would help. But for the most part I haven’t noticed that politics has matured to that point.

  • Mick Fealty

    One of the most challenging problem for working out what is and what is not significant is the one pointed up by Gerard on the Smithwick Tribunal.

    That is SInn Fein’s enviable capacity to trade in political futures as though they had the same value as the many judicial and quasi judicial processes now being entered against various state forces.

    For a party that as Tommie Gorman once notably remarked has a reputation for paying for its metaphorical cattle at the political Mart with post dated checks that’s a neat trick.