After Drumcree 2026, unionist unity is a fading pipedream…

In a publication issued by the Ulster Unionist party back in 2005 to commemorate the centenary of the Ulster Unionist Council the author noted:

“…in subordinating minor differences for cause, the UUC was to be spectacularly successful in harnessing and mobilising popular support for the Union and a means of defending the Union for decades to come.”

Given the main focus of his party conference and subsequently, DUP Leader, Gavin Robinson, MP’s dreams of yesteryears persist within political Unionism. The future is outsourced to an irretrievable past. Voters are to be corralled into conforming to historical orthodoxy lacking in openness. Any obligation to think is reduced.

If unionist parties are prepared to acquiesce to the DUP’s need for electoral co-operation, the compliance of the pro-union constituency is not assured. Many have self-emancipated from lambeg politics; anchored in everyday politics. The differences which exist within and across civic and political unionism are no longer ‘minor.’

Different backgrounds, stories, language and aspirations shape a pro-union environment where old institutions are unwinding. Unionists may seem intermingled but not all are on the same wavelength. Perhaps reducing, yet still too often, rituals and ceremonies are allowed to facilitate political adventurism; to invoke and provoke tribalism.

The recent events at Drumcree church are a clear illustration that elements within the broad PUL constituency have yet to develop the capacity to challenge cultural and political blind spots which invite global ridicule.

Building a future by going back to a past where you had the advantage is not a serious option.

The lack of response to calls for protest stand in marked contrast to the mid 1990s and illustrate a desire for discourse around strategic actions and cross-community cohesion on solutions to our shared problems.

At party level, there is fundamentalist, pro-Israel, immigration, and Drumcree- churned-up common ground between the DUP and the TUV but the latter clearly differs on keeping the NI Assembly in place, the Good Friday Agreement and the NI Protocol.

Collaboration with nationalism is not in the DNA of a TUV party which lives in denial of the 1998 referendum and acts as a misguided arbiter of British values.

Historically, the DUP came late to the Good Friday Agreement, campaigned for Brexit, delivered RHI, the St Andrew’s Agreement and ‘Safeguarding the Union ‘and has been responsible for policy and strategic missteps all of which have weakened unionism and the Agreement.

Laterally, it is reduced to daily squabbling in Stormont with its biggest partner. Elected individuals have displayed moral inconsistencies.

These, coupled with a plethora of unelected MLAs and entrenched politics have rendered unionism toxic in the view of many voters, especially, but not only, a younger generation which inhabits space beyond judgemental and sectarian language on social justice and cultural issues.

Contentious parades and bonfires are viewed as actions through which unionism creates a strategic trap of self-delusion. The view that these are culturally sacrosanct dims with the passage of time.

Those who form this constituency embrace a new way of thinking and doing politics; more inclined to discard generational identity branding and make political choices in a post-unionist and post-binary social, economic and cultural environment. Political movements cloaked in religion are not for them.

When it comes to Drumcree, the decision-making of the Parades Commission and the lack of ‘common -sense ‘leadership within the Orange Order produces a wearied indifference.

Equally, the frenzied response of ‘nationalist-republicanism’ with expletive filled and constant references to unionism that has not existed for over 50 years and events almost 30 years ago is seen as political opportunism with ‘going back’ clearly not just the domain of one political group-think.

Viewing society, as the biggest parties do, through a single ideological lens causes constituencies to become blinkered to fresh possibilities and inclined to catastrophize. It is becoming a spectator sport for those who might still retain some mild interest.

The UUP has been less strident on some areas but differences seem to hover around style, communication on the ‘case for the Union’ and presentation mainly invested in the personality and confidence of the party leader.

The headline issues of efficiency, accountability and closer scrutiny of the use of scarce resources allied to a preparedness to engage on reform of Stormont structures, as yet lacking detail, are, if polling is an indicator, resonating with some voters. However, they also indicate a re-distribution of unionist votes within a static overall percentage rather than growth.

Leadership in the Health Ministry remains an area of questionable delivery.

In regard to the DUP and the UUP there are differences but at times with reference to the role of churches in education and conservative approaches to farming and the economy, they are hard to spot and maybe not sufficiently radical or different to engage erstwhile UUP or referendum unionist but non-voting individuals.

Muted and damage-limitation responses on challenging issues do not in themselves indicate value divergence as the model of the broad – but Protestant – church survives. Credibility might increase by principled clarity on detail and ‘binning the spin.’

The progressive and pluralist unionism of which the late Lord David Trimble spoke has not been fully embraced by his former party which has a history of zig-zagging back and forth between traditional routes and pastures new.

Risk aversion and short-termism has been a feature. This is evident in the approach to Westminster elections with the new leader committing the party to collaboration with other unionist parties to ‘maximise unionist representation’, suggesting that it would be ‘unforgiveable’ to do otherwise.

This can only mean the DUP and the TUV.

If pacts or agreed candidates are in place there would be mucj needed financial gains and put UUP representatives on the green benches as was the case with Tom, now Lord, Elliott and former MLA and MP, Danny Kinahan when Michael Nesbitt MLA was leader.

Both lost their seats when Theresa May called a quick post-Brexit election. Any gains were short-term and forfeited credibility. Pandering to the lowest common denominator is not guaranteed to last when electoral pragmatism is tested; as tactics and self-interest run counter to mission, values and strategy.

Carl Sandberg’s comments point to caution:

“when have the people been half as rotten as what the panderers to the people dangle before crowds”.

Why compromise integrity by shackling your party to those who will drag you into the type of ‘frenzied’ politics, characteristic of the DUP and the TUV? This leads to mixed messaging and the perception of being ‘DUP-lite’ or ‘TUV-tainted’; of conviction ‘up for trade.’ Courage of convictions is placed in doubt.

It is unlikely to resonate with or meet the challenge of persuading that segment of voters and non-voters which the UUP is seeking to engage. This goes deeper than cybersecurity, Fintech and agri-food. In fact, in regard to the latter, there are concerns about Lough Neagh, environmental damage and chemicals which find their way into the food chain.

You cannot talk of making Northern Ireland work for all whilst aligning with the tribal politics of parties with a litany of policy failures and a reservoir of prejudice with no outlets. Unionism becomes an appeal to territory and bonds of blood wherein the past casts too long a shadow; with democratic choice rendered disposable.

A growing number of pro-union voters do not want the failed politics of a Jim Allister MP  or Carla Lockhart MP

It has been shown through failed initiatives not to work and acts as a reason for pro-union voters who see no solutions in anger, rage and ragged politicking to stay out of the polling booth; unwilling to be manipulated to provide politicians with position and power. Unionism does not think as one.

This reality needs to be reflected in support for clearly identifiable policies, outcomes and commitments; not the politics of ‘keep them out’ and flag waving’ with linkage to unionist parties who do not enjoy the respect of fellow UK parliamentarians and their constituents.  You maybe had to be there. Many of the current unionist MPs and MLAs of all parties were not.

It was a struggle within unionism to win acceptance for the Good Friday Agreement and a mandate which unionist parties are abandoning. The DUP are not prepared to implement all the inter-locking strands of the Agreement and the TUV do not want to.

The UUP above all should be the one unionist party willing to ensure that the mandate from referendums, North and South is delivered. Politicians at Stormont have no right to allow the Agreement to fail. The mandate was and remains to make all three strands work.

This is the real challenge for any unionist party wanting to lead Northern Ireland forward.

Building consensus and collaboration within the strands of the GFA, and not just within a narrow protestant unionism, has to inform any roadmap to the future, even when it gets hard to pursue. The current co-existence of the two bigger parties with the peace process perverted for the basest of goals cannot be the best we can do.

The Garvaghy Road is a stretch of narrow ground which no doubt the ‘ideologues’ within dissident republicanism will see as ‘de-colonised’ but the response of the majority of the population to what was clearly a manufactured strategic crisis on all sides places greater priority on well-being, employment, the cost of living and family.

Angry words given too much media airtime do not reflect reality. There may be more common ground than it appears within voters suffering from ‘peace process fatigue.’ Productive and ambitious political unionism has to move into a more consensual space and bring others along.

Any talk of ‘circle the wagons’ unionist unity, united by sloppy labelling yet lacking any meaningful common goals, serves only as a diversion into a blind alley of unionism’s own construction; to frustrate the priorities and resilience that the response of the wider community to Drumcree has laid bare.