Fortnight Publications Ltd.

Scrabbling for AnswersAuthor(s): Lee ReynoldsSource: Fortnight, No. 417 (Sep., 2003), p. 5Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25560942 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 09:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.31 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:06:52 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

|Fortnight SEPTEMBER 2003

thie political column Lee Reynolds

SCRABBLING FOR ANSWERSK

The political dinosauir called the Ulster Unionist Council continuies to self-mutilate to the amuisement of some, the bewilderment of many and the boredom of quite a few. However, others have been thinking the future of Unionism in three recent publications - 'Principles of Loyalism', 'Picking Up The Pieces' and 'A Long Peace?' - and for a community supposedly riven with division there is a surprising degree of consenisus.

INTERNAL The PUP produced 'Principles of Loyalism' as an internal discussion docurment and a tool for political educationi. Its starting

point is that the Ulster Covenant is the foundation document of Ulster Loyalism and provides Loyalism with four principles: * The material well-being of Ulster * Civil and religious freedom * Equal citizenship * Armed resistance

The PUP uses these principles to putsh for a united confident Loyalism "to go on the offensive politically, sociallv and culturally." This offensive is to be non-violent but little other detail is offered. Close examination revyeals a stubtext to the documenit - an attempt to restore internal unity. The slow disintegration of the Belf:ast Agreement has caused schisms within the PUP and its associated groups, the UVF and RHC. The publication is a call to retturni to first principles and an attempt to direct the anger and frustrations of the grassroots into non-violent community and political activisnm.

However, there is a sense of deja Vll. This was the platform the PUP pushed in the 1990s with mixed restults. For example, its attempt to get loyalists to embrace Irishness failed. Also, the principles to the

Belfast Agreement are not scrtutinised in light of Loyalism's four principles. For example, are we equal citizens if Ulster has different and special equality and human rights provisions from the rest of the UK?

Quick question: Which political party would use the following phrases?

'Appeasement of the perpetrators of violence', 'fudge on the illegal possession of arms', 'concessionis to the extreme nationalist analysis of the problem' and 'a return of devolution based on a settlement agreeable to both communiiities'. DUP? UKUP?

All of these may be found in the Cadogan Group's pamphlet 'Picking Up the Pieces'. Unsurprisingly, Ian Paisley Jnr issued a statement saying the Trimblite

Cadogan Group (which now includes Stephen King, a key Trimble adviser) had

adopted the DUP analysis. The pamphlet is written in the

condescending and grating tone which we have come to associate with Dennis Kennedy. It displays all the illiberalism of the liberals. As Ian Paisley holds ftindamentalist evangelical Protestant beliefs the Cadogan Group believes he and the DUP should have "only a limited role to play in creating a better Northern Ireland, no matter how many votes it wins". It also displays the cultural prejudice of the 'progressive' attacking yet again the Ulster

Scots cultural revival. 'Picking Up the Pieces' reads like a

pious wish-list with no indication of how it can be achieved. It can't be the DUP because the Cadogan Group don't like them, thus it mtust be the UUP. Does anyone seriouslv believe the UUP in any fit condition to negotiate or sell anything?

Ringland el at in 'A Long Peace?' look beyond the present woes of Unionism outlining eight approaches to its long-term development.

They apply7 Robert Ptuttnam's social capital tlheories. Puttnam's research into devolution in Italy demonstrated that the areas of well developed social capital/civil society (the north) reaped benefits from devoluLtion but that those areas with poor levels of social capital (the south) did not.

However, Ringlaind el al do not draw the obvious parallel in the Ulster context. The social capital of the nationalist community is well-developed and has been able to

maximise the benefits of devolution and the political process while the underdevTeloped and factionalised social capital of the Unionist community is unable to do so.

CONSENSUS The publications share a common analysis of Unionism. It is reactive and tinprofessioinal. It lacks confidence, vision and a strategy. The Taskforce report offered the same analysis 15 years ago. The failure to address these issues is the most damning indictment of David Trimble's leadership.

The Trimble/Taylor leadership had the support of nearly 70% of the Ulster

Unionist Council. They had the chance to develop and definie a new Unionism but instead Ulster Unionism agreed to what

Cadogani Group admits is essentially a nationalist blueprint. A new beginning was squandered and Unionism finds itself in a deeper political hole.

Interestingly, the issue that all three seem to have the most difficulty with is identity. Prior to the 3rd Home Rule Crisis, all the ingredienits for an Ulster identity had existed for decades if not centuries. On

28th September 1912, those ingredients were given political form. While 'Principles of Loyalism' talks about the 'people of Ulster' it does not include an Ulster identity as a principle and pays some very small lip service to an Irish identity. The Cadogan

Group wish wistfully for a sense of Irishness that died with the Gaelic revival and advocates that the Orange Order agrees to do what the Parades Commission would tell them to do in return for its abolition.

Ringland et al's most ham-fisted suggestion is that the Orange Order should become a 'Prod' Rotarians.

Irish nationalism takes its culture and identity seriously and secured changes to develop and embed Irish Gaelic culture and identity. Pro-agreement Unionism (Lord Laird excluded) was publicly reticent and privately unwilling to do much if anything for the Orange Order, Ulster-Scots or anJ cultural organisation. Their one 'achievement', the Ulster-Scots Agency, is

more of a curse to the revival than a benefit as the civil service has used it to block the revival. These failures and others (e.g. the name of the RUC) contributed to the feeling that pro-agreement unionists were out of touch with the identity concerns of the average uinionist.

QUESTION The reason the Belfast Agreement was defined by Nationalism is that Nationalism actually had an analysis and Unionism did not. During the Troubles, Unionism generally presented the situation as a security issue. This meant post-ceasefire that Unionism was left floundering. Others advocated making Northern Ireland more 'acceptable' to nationalists. This assumed

utnionists were content with the status quo and that Nationalism can be assuaged, both questionable assumptions.

However all three publications, like all Unionist political parties, fail to answer or even address the most fundamental question - what do unionists believe are the causes of the Ulster conflict?

Without an answer, Unionism cannot have a vision or a strategy. No new structures or improved professionalism can overcome this lack of vision. Without an answer, Unionism cannot offer solutions to itself, let alone anyone else.

I PAGE 5 |

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.31 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:06:52 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions