One of the key arguments of for making Northern Ireland work is that Northern Ireland has changed. Its origins in the controversies of the 19th and 20th centuries and their consequences after 1921 cannot be ignored. But those who wish for Northern Ireland to work argue they are not necessary truths of either its present or its future. It is for people to choose and that choice is not pre-ordained (like the historicism proclaiming the inevitability of Irish unity). The message of building an inclusive society is that we should make Northern Ireland work for everyone, a place in which things not only can be but also are other than what they were.
Twenty years ago, hope and history rhyming was the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday Agreement (as the previous post noted). In Arthur Aughey’s formulation, the B/GFA was a sort of historic compromise according to the celebrated line in Lampedusa’s novel The Leopard: ‘If you want things to stay the same, things will have to change.’ That was the unionist compromise. The nationalist compromise, he added, was the other side of that same coin: ‘If you want things to change, things will have to stay the same.’ It was a hard compromise for all sides to make and the resolution of those who made it should still be acknowledged. It is that historic compromise which is being challenged today. Here is a nutshell is the substantial distinction between a shared and agreed Northern Ireland and civic nationalism as well as Sinn Fein.
The first believes that Northern Ireland is a common home for all its residents however they choose to describe themselves, whatever identity – national or otherwise – they may have. Northern Ireland has become a more prosperous, more equal, more peaceful place to live with good public services and high standards of living. It is a home with exciting possibilities and positive potential. Ironically, given the doubts among many voters in 1998, it is those supporting the Union who now seem more firmly committed to the complex and consensual arrangements of the B/GFA than many of their opponents.
The second has returned to what might be described as the politics of the desert island – not, of course, in the sense of an idyllic, paradisiacal, existence. The meaning is the very opposite – it is a vision of people trapped by malign historical circumstances in a hostile landscape. The resources of the place are depleting and the future is bleak. The only possibility is to plan and prepare for the day of delivery when the rescue ship of the SS United Ireland appears on the near horizon. Constructing the jetty for that day is now called a ‘conversation’ about a unity referendum or border poll. Northern Ireland is understood in terms of its origins as a ‘denial of Irish democracy’, ‘frustration of national rights’, ‘veto on historical destiny’. The message is clear and simple - nothing will ever really change until the day of Irish unity. Northern Ireland’s centenary is only a confirmation of failure, frustration and lack of legitimacy.
There is an interesting paradox. The Irish state has as many problems with its own past as does Northern Ireland. The troublesome consequences of this thinking have clearly dawned on President Higgins and former Taoiseach Varadkar. The former has worried publicly about the effect of anti-British stereotypes in Irish public culture (and as it was once famously said in Ireland the ‘British presence’ is the majority in Northern Ireland. The latter has expressed concern about the way in which the Republic has ‘lost its way’ recently in commemorating its own centenaries. These interventions are measured and welcome.
However, sometimes you’d be forgiven for thinking that the history of the present Republic starts in the ideal of 1916, all heroic and self-sacrificing, and then skips to the land of liberal values following the recent referendums on same sex marriage and abortion. The often quoted saying that the Irish remember their history while the English forget theirs reveals itself as a convenient myth. Nationalism’s tendency to ‘fold’ over unpalatable historical truths, its willingness to ignore even the recent past, is astonishing.
If the Irish state is really saying (but not saying at the same time) in its decade of centenaries) ‘our origins have not determined our present or our future’ it is doing so for the best of reasons. The choice is to live life forwards for the good of all its citizens. If so, then the same can be said about Northern Ireland. Life here is not confined to the sectarian grooves of eternal repetition. And that is exactly what making Northern Ireland work for all is saying and showing.
Back to: Institute of Irish Studies