For Narrative Hospitality

“The most intriguing part of Irish history for me is the period of Grattan’s parliament…. the first emergence of the Renaissance Movement in this island amongst the non-conformists. They wanted to get freedom for everybody who was advancing, for the Roman Catholic community, the slowly emerging merchant class……. fighting not just for their own rights but for everyone’s. Then the Catholics in the South organised on their own, ultimately dividing the community….. realistically leading to partition…… I blame the South for partition.”

Given his background as a Nationalist MP at Stormont, the above view of the late Claudy-born Paddy Gormley did not conform to the lazy stereotype.

Mr Gormley, a graduate of Maynooth University, came to Stranmillis College of Education to complete a post-graduate qualification and enter the teaching profession. His views, stated in the course of an interview for the SRC magazine -stand in marked contrast to the standard interpretation of Irish republicanism re-iterated, yet again, in Economic Benefits of a United Ireland (Sinn Fein November 2020):

"Partition sustains many of the problems besetting the people of Ireland. It is also a symptom of these problems. British rule in Ireland and the denial to the people of Ireland of our right to self-government remains at the core of our divisions and difficulties. The human, economic and social costs of British rule and the disastrous decision to partition Ireland have been immense."

In addition, to its summary dismissal of any pro-Union preference, or rights, Irish republicanism is not averse to victimhood narratives. Although claiming to address, on the basis of evidence, how a United Ireland would be better for the economies of the two jurisdictions on the island, Sinn Fein, is unable to resist the tedious repetition of the ‘injustice of partition‘, placing the blame on a British government of the day. It is a well-rehearsed policy position that offers the party at least two benefits.  By placing total blame on to someone else, you do not have to take responsibility for your angst of governance over the past decade and by establishing a blame culture around violence and killing, you separate yourself from your own responsibilities.

It offers no moral reflective constraint on what an Uachtaráin Michael D Higgins, speaking of the history of Irish republicanism and the ‘Irish struggle’ refers to as ‘the callous disregard for human life,’ or sensitivity to the views or pain of others. There is no attempt to break down the hardness. Content to conform only to its own thinking, no counter-narrative is invited or considered. Yet, they call for debate. Or even the fact ‘British rule in Ireland’ is not a denial of rights to self-determination. Sinn Fein supported the Good Friday Agreement and thereby the principle of consent. Northern Ireland’s place in the UK is based upon that fact not some British establishment pulling in the strings. Maybe, it is disguising the fact that pre-Agreement Sinn Fein upheld that they would never sit in a partitionist assembly or accept the majority consent of the people of Northern Ireland to uphold the partitionist Assembly that they now sit in. This is not being pointed but instead a plea for proper debate and the rejection of the counter-intuitive.

You cannot foster reconciliation or engage in debates concerning a new economic Ireland on the basis of ‘we are right and that is all we have to say on the matter’. Is there not irony in Irish republicans espousing freedom so enthusiastically yet displaying such an inability to free its own thinking from the chains of an embittered past? Should a focus on the present and the future needs of people, as a diverse people, not be to the fore? Seemingly not. Within republicanism there is a claim to debate but a politics which at times is destructive and ultimately self-destructive. Would republicans rather groan than grow?  

Writing in his book ’Not in God’s Name’ Rabbi Jonathan Saaks, noted:

"you have to build a future; only then can you revisit the past without being held captive by the past."

In a not totally dissimilar vein Michael D Higgins, in the context of Machnahm 100, commenting on the potential of commemoration notes:

"Commemoration...offers the opportunity to reflect, to look deeply at change over time, to provide an understanding of where things have been, where they are today and why." 

 Sinn Féin republicanism, it seems, wants to do none of this or is reluctant to do so. It is apparent in its determination to promote an essentialist and absolutist narrative and, whilst speaking of wishing to build a future, wanting to re-create an imagined pre-partition past, the demise of which republican violence shaped to no little extent. There is no earnest desire to heed the words of President Higgins:

"confronting and working through that which establishes the distance between us in terms of different narratives of violence recalled, the absolutism that drove those impulses to violence, the careless and dangerous assumptions of 'the Other', which may have driven such violence." 

Republicanism, and all of us, must rise to the challenge of understanding contexts; of nurturing “a narrative hospitality”. In approaching the NI Centenary, it is unlikely that an Irish Nationalist or Republican will find reason to celebrate; the clue is in the name. However, partition created two separate jurisdictions, each with a complex history over time; neither, as some Unionists in Northern Ireland might be tempted to feel, a cause for unbridled triumphalism.

In this final period of the Decade of Centenaries polls show a desire, particularly amongst the post Good Friday Agreement’s less constitutionally focused generation, for a better and contextually defined future in terms of concerns and issue-based politics. Republicanism needs to engage in that generational shift and not only reflect upon its own responsibilities and failings, past and present but accept that identities are no longer binary.  Sinn Féin and its constituency have a role to play but it is unlikely to be meaningful in the long-term if it adheres rigidly to its current messaging; you cannot bring solutions to a divided society if you fail to acknowledge that you, and not just others, helped reproduce those problems. When parity of esteem and mutual respect is a practice and not an espoused value that is the point at which we build a shared and agreed future.