Milestone or millstone:
Maybe we should all take a few months to ask difficult questions of ourselves
PARTITION is a fact of history. It is also a fact of history that neither unionists nor nationalists wanted it. And, a century on, it remains the chief bone of contention between both sides: the subject around which every and any election revolves.
A line on a map. A line in a mindset. A line that predominates and eclipses every other socio/economic/political issue. A line which still represents the permafrost barrier between possible reconciliation and dreary steeples retrenchment.
A line at the dead centre of our past, present and future. A line which needs to be discussed rationally and honestly by the primary political traditions (whose beliefs and strategies have been shaped by it), as well as by a younger generation which doesn’t quite get the stranglehold it continues to exert over politics here.
I support the Union and will continue to do so. I welcome the opportunity to make the case for Northern Ireland. But I also accept that many, including some from a perceived unionist background, have difficulties with marking its centenary.
In To Kill A Mockingbird, Atticus Finch tells his children: “If you just learn a single trick you’ll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view... until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.”
And maybe that is the trick we need to learn as we reflect on the events of the last century and the fact of history which led us to where we are now.
I can understand why nationalists are wary of anything that looks like celebrating, rather than marking, the centenary of partition.
I understand why they think there will be elements of unionism which will adopt a triumphalist approach to the centenary — although it strikes me that the plans by political unionism to mark the event have, generally speaking, been fairly measured.
But the history of the last 100 years isn’t just about “Ulster” unionism. The closing of Stormont in March 1972 — 49 years ago — removed unionism’s power-base and put decision-making in the hands of Westminster (which often worked hand-inglove with Irish governments).
A whole raft of legislation and reform changed Northern Ireland beyond recognition: opening doors for new political parties and new ways of cross-community engagement.
Nothing about the change was overnight, but the changes, collectively and cumulatively, finally made it possible to build a peace/political process which, for all its faults, is still in place.
That is why I was disappointed when Sinn Fein and the SDLP (along with a number of key figures from within civic nationalism and academia) turned down the opportunity to participate in the Centenary Forum marking the formation of Northern Ireland.
As I say, I understand their concerns about finding themselves attending some sort of celebratory event, yet their absence means there will be no significant, or substantive, nationalist input into an important debate.
The story of Northern Ireland cannot simply be told by one community. As one very shrewd observer of nationalism noted: “There is a real opportunity to reflect on how different sections of the community view the last 100 years and how they feel the partition of the island has impacted on generations of people who live here.”
That is the opportunity which, I think, is now being missed. Fine, a very broadbased, inclusive, respectful debate about partition isn’t going to put-to-rights all the divisions and dismantle all the barriers: yet it might open doors to the Atticus Finch position of being able to see your situation from the perspective of your opponents.
A fact of history a century ago still dictates and shapes our socio/political engagement: so maybe we should take a few months in 2021 to ask difficult questions of ourselves and of those we perceive as irreconcilable enemies.
I have long argued that unionists should not be afraid of engaging with nationalism on the subject of possible Irish unity. Many nationalists have praised me for that stance.
Yet, some of the people who have praised my willingness to engage with nationalism on various panels and at some Sinn Fein-organised conferences are now telling me that nationalism should remain “pretty aloof ” when it comes to engaging with unionism during Northern Ireland’s centenary. You can’t have it both ways.
One of the main pitches made by nationalists to unionists during the various unity projects of the last decade is that unionists, along with their culture, traditions, heritage and identity, would be accommodated, recognised and respected in a “new Ireland”.
An essential dimension to that unionist culture, tradition, heritage and identity can be summed up in the very words “Northern Ireland”: a place unionists regard as their home. Yet, or so it seems, the vast majority of political/civic nationalism and republicanism doesn’t want to engage in a centenary debate about Northern Ireland.
It always seems trite to say it is important we talk. Yet it’s a simple, unavoidable truth: we do need to talk. About our shared present. About our shared past. About our shared future. About the facts of history which continue to shape and steer our engagement with each other after a century.
‘It seems trite but it is the truth: we do need to talk’