|
Unionism
and republicanism are similar in one respect at least
– they both congregate around a simplistic central
political tenet. Undoubtedly a strong point in terms
of hanging on to adherents, but, at the same time,
a fundamental weakness when it comes to internal cohesion.
To
be a unionist one need only hold the belief that Northern
Ireland should retain its present political and constitutional
position within the United Kingdom. Conversely, to
qualify as a republican you need only advocate Northern
Ireland’s joining together with the rest of the
island in an independent political entity where the
head of state is an elected or nominated president.
These
two political camps provide shelter for so many variations
on their respective themes, that I tend to think more
“large tent” than “broad church”
when reflecting on either.
You
can be liberal, socialist, conservative or nationalist;
left wing, right wing or middle-of-the-road; racist,
sectarian, homophobic or anti-Semitic; or occupy a
position anywhere on the broad religious spectrum
between fanatic and atheist - and still legitimately
lay claim to being a republican or unionist.
In
fact, the only thing you can’t be is both republican
and unionist.
So,
given the very basic nature of the political glue
that binds together otherwise very diverse groups
of people, it shouldn’t surprise us that both
unionism and republicanism are so prone to internal
division and schism. In fact, it would be very strange
if they weren’t.
Only
political certainty, (as during 30 years of conflict
when we all could be certain that politics were going
nowhere) or a real or imagined militarily threatening
enemy (again handily provided for both sides by the
“troubles”) seems to have lent anything
remotely resembling internal cohesion to either group.
As soon as those were removed or changed shape, the
binding quickly fell apart and the main focus immediately
shifted back to internal differences of opinion, emphasis,
analysis, interpretation, direction etc. etc. etc.
All
meaningless of course, because on any purely ideological
evaluation, while both political positions can reasonably
claim to be as wide as Lough Neagh, at the same time,
neither is much deeper than a puddle.
Consequently,
the little thug who spends all of his or her spare
time attacking vulnerable members of “the other
community” has, in truth, as much right to don
the all-encompassing mantle of unionism or republicanism
as their more moderate and cerebral co-adherents who
would never countenance such behaviour.
All
political parties and ideologies (at least any worthy
of the title) allow for a diversity of opinion and
indeed actively encourage creative and positive tensions
as long as they fall within well-defined ideological
parameters. They rightly consider such internal discourse
as absolutely vital for continuing development.
In
this regard, the problem for unionism and republicanism
is twofold.
On
the one hand, the parameters of the respective belief
systems are so broad as to render them almost non-existent
thereby leaving them open to the wide diversity of
adherents already outlined. On the other, and in complete
contradiction of this diversity, both sides barely
allow – much less encourage – the open debate,
self-examination and positive criticism that is the
hallmark of any healthy political party or movement.
In
our set up, any such discourse is, more often than
not, looked upon as evidence of treachery.
Therefore,
frustration alone ensures a perpetual state of powder
keg volatility is the ever present and defining feature
of both the orange and green tents.
Another
little incidental by-product of our political set-up
here, again much at odds with that pertaining in other
places, is the role religious persuasion plays (the
accident of birth phenomenon) in pre-determining our
political beliefs. The rigidity of this, when you
think about it, is truly amazing. It’s never
about joining a political camp in Northern Ireland
– that comes automatically with birth –
but the remote possibility that you might leave your
pre-determined one.
But
why should we, on either side, continue to allow ourselves
to be herded together like sheep into some false affinity
with many who, in reality, we have nothing in common
beyond a shared (and often barely that) political/religious
persuasion?
It
ensures we are lumped together with, and more often
than not defined by, the lowest common denominator
within our own particular tribe. In our large orange
or green tent, we rub shoulders with drug dealers,
religious fanatics, criminals, sectarian bigots, psychopaths
and more - and they can all, with justification, claim
us as their tribal brothers and sisters.
Politicians
will never seek to move us beyond this blind tribalism.
It simply isn’t in their interests. From the
moment they are elected, a politician’s overriding
concern is ensuring that they are re-elected next
time around.
Disturbing
the status quo by pointing up some hard realities
to their own electorate certainly isn’t the way
to go about attracting votes. A continuous playing
to the lowest common denominator within a particular
community is a much safer bet. And besides, the biggest
criminals in either tent are often the politicians
themselves.
It
therefore falls upon those from outside of the electoral
rat race to lead the charge on this – those amongst
us who can no longer stand to be aligned with the
lowest common denominator within our own pre-determined
tribe.
Decent
people, who consider another’s religious and
political beliefs as merely incidental to the fact
that they are fellow human beings, must begin a discussion
on how we might create another tent: one where the
entrance qualifications are a lot more stringent than
mere blind tribal allegiance.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
