Number 93 : July 1998 |
The people of Northern Ireland, represented by their politicians, are at present trying to reach a negotiated agreement which should, as we have been told, bring peace to this troubled land. Both governments’ spin-doctors have led us to believe that the troubles can be solved by talks between both sections of Northern Ireland society: Catholic / Nationalist and Protestant / Unionist. But all sides are watching and waiting for their collapse. The real problem, it could be argued, is one of a lack of common identity between the two opposing groups. Northern Ireland’s society is polarised between two poles: "Britishness" and "Irishness". This polarity is focused in to the Identity of both sections, Catholic / Nationalist and Protestant / Unionist. The tragedy of this situation is that the psychopathic mass killer and the pacifist politician both hold and cherish the same heritage and identity and this is the core of the problem in Northern Ireland. The mind-set is promoted on both sides by the politicians who in the current talks are not talking about peace but about what happens to Northern Ireland territorially, with peace supposed to be a by-product of the agreement reached. The promotion of this "us vs them" attitude, polarising both communities, solidifies their strength at the talks process.
Accepting the above commentary, the core problem in Northern Ireland can be identified as having two parts. Firstly, the lack of common identity with each community polarised into the British or Irish mind-set. Secondly, that the violence is mainly against innocent civilians from both communities and the people do not identify with the "innocent civilians" as strongly as they do with their "heritage and beliefs" which is also shared by those who commit the atrocities against the innocent civilians. For peace to occur in Northern Ireland, there needs to be an evolution of morality and ideals towards non-violence and more importantly intolerance towards violence and those who commit those acts. What is being proposed here is that if the silent majority from both communities were to embrace each other and create a new Ulster, a new identity, an independent society, Northern Ireland would have its best chance for peace. This would be based on a voluntary sacrifice of the "mind-set" which both communities have. But this new identity would be opposed by the established forces. Both governments, the paramilitary groups and a majority of the political parties, have promoted the mind-set as it is the basis of their power but a Northern Ireland society independent of both Britain and Ireland, could be the only way for peace to flourish.
The formation of Northern Ireland society in the entire twentieth society has been based on the "us vs them" mind-set and it needs to be recognised that the effort each individual would need to change is enormous. The religious institutions, while making calls for tolerance and understanding, have no intention of sacrificing any part of their identity, which might dilute their power; and so are a hindrance to peace. While not being a major hindrance, their intransigence needs to be recognised. For Northern Ireland to find peace, all communities must be willing to shed their identity in order to form a new one in a new Ulster.
Who, one could ask, would stand up to lead us in to a new Ulster? A brief examination of the politicians on both sides would reveal a deep seam of anger and hostility. This needs to be left behind if peace is to be found. However if one has had friends or relatives assassinated by paramilitary or even military, then the anger and hatred from this need to be dealt with. Politicians calling for paramilitary disarmament are well justified but they have to disarm their anger also.
An issue of contention for years has been the role of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC). Acceptable to the Unionists but not the Nationalists, this issue could be resolved in the context of evolving towards a new Ulster. The police force in Northern Ireland should be remoulded into a fairer balanced institution with each community proportionally represented in the RUC. Each community could be policed by members of its own but this would have to evolve to where each officer’s identity was irrelevant and justice was non-discriminatory. A remoulded RUC would have to earn the respect of all citizens in order to take back the power given to paramilitaries. The RUC would have to have the backbone to stand up to both communities simultaneously. For instance if there was a stand-off in Drumcree this year and, say, the Garvahy residents are beaten off the street then the Orange Order should suffer a similar fate. It could be argued that a member of the GAA [Gaelic Athletic Association, Ed] or the Orange Order shouldn’t be admitted to the RUC. But perhaps a GAA-playing member of the Orange Order might be allowed to join the RUC ! [Note : Alan provided the following background to explain this piece of Irish wit .... Ed. : "the GAA holds a monopoly over all the native Irish sports (hurling, Gaelic football, handball etc. It could be considered a sporting Orange Order for the nationalist community. Members of the RUC are not permitted to join"]. But again, Northern Ireland would need to evolve to where persons’ political and religious affiliations were their own beliefs. Of course, all institutions would have to undergo a similar metamorphosis, breaking the bonds of sectarianism.
The main failing of this new approach is that the power-brokers in Northern Ireland, Dublin and London wouldn’t allow this situation to flourish as it would mean that they would have to let go their power and accept that their roles and identities would have to change, that is if peace was the goal ! The main failing of the current process is that those who are hoping for peace are looking for it in the current talks, which are isolated from Northern Ireland society, and not in their own hearts, homes and communities.
That’s it Theo. I hope to get back to you with more soon.
Alan Carr
Alan : I have to ask myself, important though these issues are, what have they to do with philosophy ? You do touch on the issues of how important cultural or national identity is. Do you think these should be such as we identify with or sign up for, or things that we can observe or enjoy from the outside. Eg. can we enjoy the Welsh (say) cultural heritage without Welshness being what makes us us, and without which we are nothing ?
On your specific proposal, and I admit you understand the situation better than I do, why does your proposal rely on a patched-up Ulster - which does seem to be what’s on the table at the moment in any case, or am I missing something subtle ? Excuse my ignorance, but isn’t Ulster in its 6-county rather than 9-county form a fabrication of partition ? If we’re going to do away with traditions, why not go for a united Ireland and have done with it ? If not, why not a more radical partition, involving population movements as has been the case in India / Pakistan or the Balkans ? Otherwise we’re forever stuck with tribalism as in many inappropriately partitioned African countries.
Theo