From faraway London, I struggle to explain to myself why unionism can’t create a strategy for survival. The doom theory of inevitable eclipse naturally favoured by nationalists committed to unity is for the birds. Unionists are undermining their own position. Why are they doing it when it seems obvious to everybody else?
Do they think the passive -aggressive victimhood that worked so brilliantly for nationalism might work well for them too?. Now that the demographic tables have turned? Might minority party status yet prove to be a winner? How else do you explain TUV and the likes of Carla Lockhart?
For fifty years majoritarianism, the term for winner take all politics, worked well in their own limited restrictive terms. A state is defined by people of similar culture. Problems arise when it contains a substantial dissentient minority as happened throughout Europe between the wars with a bigger power leaning on them next door. Yet even after 1945, most borders remained roughly the same except for Poland’s, whose territory was shifted westward by the Soviets to create a bigger buffer between themselves and the Germans. For partitioned Northern Ireland it was the refusal to grant equal citizenship rights to the one third minority that destroyed ther original state. Unionism has never fully absorbed the hard lesson. Adapt or be gradually undermined
Power sharing violently rejected in 1974 was just about accepted in 1998 as the price of no war peace, with the DUP half outside the door. It saw Sinn Fein as the IRA’s inheritors playing the system by encouraging unionist divisions by teasing and taunting them with the slow pace of arms decommissioning. Through evolution Sinn Fein have held the initiative in the strategic game ever since in a game unionists should never have played . As the self-defined natural parties of government, government delivery has held a poor second place. But then I remember that the DUP had been the original party of opposition. Old habits die hard.
DUP self confidence was at its peak in 2007 as a consequence of the St Andrew’s Agreement which replaced joint election of FM dFMwith single party ( DUP ) FM election, a move which returned to bite them. Ian Paisley became the first DUP First Minister sitting alongside ex IRA Chief Martin McGuiness as the chuckle brothers . a brief coalition of opposites. which the party couldn’t stomach h even from the onlie begetter. His less charismatic successor Peter Robison couldn’t swing parity of esteem for Sinn Fein by assenting to turn the remaining Maze H blocks into a centre of general commemoration.
In 2024 history of a kind was made whereby rules set by the DUP overturned the iron law of a century. Sinn Fein became the largest party in the more cohesive bloc. According to rules set by the DUP they donned the mantle of First Minister. After three Assembly suspensions and repeated reform initiatives it’s been perpetual groundhog day. A system designed for centre ground synergy found it difficult to survive as a coalition of polar opposites. And that’s not the only structural problem.
With the shadow of the gunman lurking in the background, nationalism’s passive- aggressive victim strategy had worked brilliantly to win equal individual human rights and parity of esteem in society. Like the replaceement of the RUC by the PSNI, regarded as anarrow nationalist victory rather than a fresh start for everybody. But these were natural gains appropriate for nationalists to win- more than a mere game it became. Thirty years on the game continues to deliver with the war over and structural inequality long gone. I find to my amazement that the failures to deliver a new Casement Park and more bizarrely a new A 35 dual carriageway are being laid at unionists’ door. Even though far more significant factors were in play like a court ruling over the A35 and cost sharing with other potential Casement partners .
What’s the current line-up of grievance? Dual language street names approval by only 15% of the street? Slow official adoption of the GFA requirement to expand the use of Irish? Refusal to grant integrated status to particular schools? University expansion for Derry? Hardly exclusively nationalist benefits. But nationalism lagging behind had been the one to receive the more identity victories in a game where one side’s gain is treated as at the other’s expense. For politically it is far more appealing to demand than to refuse. Sinn Feins’s starry left wingery winds unionists up something rotten. Unionists were human ritghts sceptics from the beginning. Who needed a human rights regime when they were in comfortable majority in a divided society? Now they are beginning to see the point.
Yes well ok. It’s the old elemental fear of “them” outbreeding “us”. It has happened already about 46% to 43% but with uncertainty about how to calculate growing numbers of Others. And the ultimate fear of Catholics becoming the overall majority. That’s what it’s all about isn’t it?
How are unionists coping with their elemental fear? Not very well. Do they think that victimhood would work as well for them as it worked for nationalists? But the war is over and structural discrimination has been abolished? What have they got left to go on?
Ah yes. Well. Drumcree. Like handling a hand grenade with the pin removed. Not one to create a stable outcome.
I remain puzzled as to why unionism can’t create a consensus for survival. Allowing for fraying at the edges not much REELY divides the DUP and the UUs.. NDNA allowed for more stages of Assembly boycott as futile gestures to squabble over as now over Drumcree; but don’t they both REELY want to keep the Assembly going as the essential badge of Unionist identity? Even that is unclear as TUV with its growing appeal dissents .
Structurally the system is highly problematic. STV PR encourages multi party voting and D’Hondt offers opportunities for smaller parties above a mathematical threshold to have a seat in government. But the lack of collective responsibility reinforces weak government. .. The designations embed sectarian competition. So fragmentation within the system is hard to avoid. Unionists have gifted Sinn Fein great opportunities for doing so. The blocs don’t compete for votes but they are greatly influenced by the behaviour of their polar opposite.
Basic sentiments remain a huge problem
- To put it very crudely. How much do unionists loathe republicans and are determined not to let the bastards win? And behinsd the parade of virtue, vice versa for nationalists? ( I characterise an attitude, I don’t endorse it). Quite a lot but not enough to unite to.stop SF winning it seems. This is important because unity isn’t only about Catholic demography; it’s also about appealing to uncommitted who hold the balance and – just as important – to concentrate on turnout, about getting the vote out. Is it better to appeal to fear of change than hope for the future? With our history who can be sure?
- All that whingeing about how the Brits don’t love us. Yes, the NI Union is different from the Scottish and Welsh because it never worked properly. But the Brits committed.to NI for 30 years in blood and treasure, far more and longer than to any part of Empire. Yes it was to support democracy against violent revolution. Democratic principle rightly remains the arbiter for the future. This means there’s all the play for rather than lose by passive- aggression.
- The other factor is the size of the subvention. Whatever the detailed arguments a bigger country is better able to support NI than a smaller one within the redistribution terms of devolution. But instead of failing to see the wood for the trees and preferring to whinge, they should get down to governing, taking genuine and sincere responsibility for the common good . That would improve their reputation no end. Assembly unity for rattling the begging bowl is deeply unconvincing when they all refuse to help fill it themselves.. That is a phoney Assembly consensus Unionists indeed all of them should break. It looks like a Sinn Fein strategy to blame the Brits for everything and so discredit the Union. Why play Sinn Fein’s own game? Is that a credible appeal to voters outside the deep core ?
- On the current situation even friendly critics are unanimous. While there’s some sympathy I haven’t read one that actually supports the present defensive confusion.. Apart from the siren voices sounded by TUV, most unionists surely agree. What’s stopping them reaching the obvious conclusions? Is it behind the mask of formal proriety an equivalent fanaticism to the IRA’s commitment to armed struggle called sectarianism that has been pinned exclusively on unionists?
Even though a passive- aggressive minority are holding the stage there are clear signs the Protestant majority is ahead of the politicians. So why do the politicians keep letting the tail wag the dog? Why haven’t they learned the lessons of the late Paisley senior’s far too lengthy and politically very expensive journey? Can they change in time to recover their position in six months? Unless they do, who believes they can win the electoral battle by fighting among themselves within the camp?
Former BBC journalist and manager in Belfast, Manchester and London, Editor Spolight; Political Editor BBC NI; Current Affairs Commissioning editor BBC Radio 4; Editor Political and Parliamentary Programmes, BBC Westminster; former London Editor Belfast Telegraph. Hon Senior Research Fellow, The Constitution Unit, Univ Coll. London
Discover more from Slugger O'Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
