However, as with a few other journalists, there seems to be a bias. Perhaps it's just an innocent misunderstanding. Nevertheless, certain aspects of the article make my teeth grind. Call me nit-picky, if you will...
The author starts off by highlighting violent behaviour by Loyalists in a neighbourhood which has long been a 'ghetto' area - an area of poverty, conflict and deprivation. An area which was mixed, and then extremely physically divided near the very start of the Troubles, into a Roman Catholic area and a Protestant area. Mary, the journalist's only declared source for the piece, lives on the Roman Catholic side. Not to diminish the aggravation she undoubtedly suffers, but there is no equivalent source from her opposite number, despite the writer's claim to have met others.
Still, in the 21st century, an equation is made between unionism and Protestantism. I don't particularly identify with Protestantism, or religion in general. I do, however, identify with my own ideas of unionism.
The Orange Order used to refer to the Orange Walk. The media, many years ago, started calling it a "march". They referred to "the marching season", giving it a much more negative air. Notwithstanding the fact that the bands and walkers often have a psuedo-militaristic bent - just like the Republican paraders.
There's mention of the "union flag", rather than the older and more affectionate term, Union Jack.
As usual, the Unionist politicians are lambasted by a journalist for "flat rejection" of suggestions by a foreign politician.. as if said foreign politician would be such a seer that it should be incredible to reject any proposals he might make. Let's not forget the ham-fisted attempts at understanding of politicians from the USA recently, when they referred to the Republic of Ireland as "regular Ireland".
The writer also simplifies the region into a 'settler' (not too removed from the label 'invader' by many Republicans) versus 'native' story. Somehow the 'natives' all manage to be Roman Catholic, and the settlers all of various Protestant denominations. Genetically speaking, however, there is no gene for Roman Catholic or for Presbyterian. Before Luther, and for a long time afterwards, we were all Roman Catholic.
The tone is negative and foreboding. Lack of mention of any strife caused by Republicans (or "Roman Catholics" if you prefer) or aimed at Unionists (or "Protestants" if you prefer), foists this negativity squarely onto the shoulders of the Protestants.
Even though the writer mentions integrated schooling, there's no mention of the fact that mixed education has been becoming more prevalent in Northern Ireland. There's no mention of the fact, either, that very few religious schools in Northern Ireland are Protestant - the vast majority are Roman Catholic Maintained Schools, which have always been part-subsidised by government. State schools in Northern Ireland, mostly attended by children of Protestant backgrounds, are secular.
The overall message from Bagehot does make sense though, to a certain extent. The cohesion of those from a Roman Catholic background, for example. Part of the reason for this is the fact that there is no such single religion as 'Protestantism': there are only denominations that happen to be Protestant. Church of Ireland (essentially Anglicanism) and Presbyterianism are subtly different from one another, and sometimes markedly different from someone from a Methodist or Baptist background in Ulster.
Bagehot talks about "privilege" and, certainly in the past, those amongst the higher classes in Northern Ireland were privileged. But at the start of the Troubles there were just as many underprivileged people of Protestant backgrounds as there were of Roman Catholic backgrounds.
'Protestants' are indeed pretty much "rudderless", but they're not dwindling at a particularly high rate. The birth rate of Roman Catholics is still slightly higher, and that of the various Protestant denominations are more 'normal'.
The article cites the parades (and only approximately two of the thousands of annual Orange-flavoured parades are particularly contentious) as one of the "ancient quarrels", but doesn't mention once the current violent activities of the 'dissident' Republican groups, or Republican 'Gaelic' supremacism which pervades and antagonises relentlessly.
Getting back to what really matters though, as opposed to the old religious argument: the numbers of people who would support any given particular ideology with regard to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.
As per usual, the knuckle-dragging, short-sighted and reactionary Loyalists are sure to screw things up for Unionism. But the Union remains intact, according to the most professional and well-regarded opinion poll, the Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey. The 2012 results are as follows:
%
|
|
| To remain part of the United Kingdom, with direct rule | 12 |
| To remain part of the United Kingdom, with devolved government | 50 |
| To unify with the Republic of Ireland?1 | 16 |
| (Independent state) | 5 |
| Other answer (specify) | 2 |
| Don't know | 14 |
So that's 64%, in all, in favour of some form of continued union with the rest of the country.
To put it another way, only 16% of the people of Northern Ireland would like to unite with the Republic of Ireland.1 There are apparently the same proportion of people who are unsure, or have a different ideology than the two main ones, as are desirous of a 'united Ireland'.
Looking at the results with the religious factor included paints a striking picture:
%
|
|||
| Catholic | Protestant | No religion | |
| To remain part of the united kingdom, with direct rule | 6 | 18 | 15 |
| To remain part of the united kingdom, with devolved government | 34 | 68 | 50 |
| To unify with the Republic of Ireland?1 | 33 | 2 | 8 |
| (independent state) | 7 | 3 | 8 |
| Other answer (specify) | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Don't know | 17 | 9 | 17 |
Forty percent of people who identified as being of a Roman Catholic background apparently desire the status quo. Only one-in-three Roman Catholics desire a united Ireland.
65% of those who don't consider themselves either of the two main religions in Northern Ireland is a figure very close to the 64% of the overall Northern Irish population. Significantly fewer of them would like to consider splitting the country up and joining another, however, at only 8%.
The Economist article suggests that Northern Ireland has been lavished with investment by the government (and by foreign money). Northern Ireland had in recent years one of the highest levels of GDP compared to other regions of the UK. It was still a negative number, but it was higher than Scotland, Wales and many regions of England. The only region with a positive GDP is London. It also suffered economically, for decades, due to the Troubles, which drove away foreign investment - the same kind of foreign investment that brought the Republic of Ireland out of a virtual third-world position, to become THE fastest growing economy in the world. It should be no surprise that when the recession hit a few years ago, the Republic succumbed to bankruptcy, as foreign investors tightened their belts.
 | |
| Sinn Féin: not so much tempered by the conflict as largely responsible for it |
While much criticism can be levelled at the UUP and the Democratic Unionist Party, only recently have Sinn Féin embraced democracy and eschewed violent methodology.
They aren't 'heroes'. They are only doing, just now, what everyone else had been trying to do already. Hearteningly though, Roman Catholic attitudes have been shown clearly in the elections: Sinn Féin only attracted around an eighth of the electorate, or about a quarter of the Roman Catholic vote.
Since Sinn Féin and the IRA's efforts to become an actual democratic party, Roman Catholics have given their blessing - as can be seen in the fact that the party basically doubled their electoral standing.
Finally, the article suggests that ignoring Haas is wrong. Hass himself goes on about 'alienation' potentially resulting in a return to the high levels of violence of the past. But who is being 'alienated'? Reading between the lines, given that the article mentions this "flat rejection by unionists", he appears to be criticising unionists.
But here's the thing: the people of Northern Ireland, have accepted Sinn Féin, and listened to them, despite all their protestations and their terrifying (read: terrorist), decades-long campaign. If the Unionists have an opinion, whether it be rejecting a foreign diplomat's suggestions or otherwise, then they should also be listened to. And accepting any valid viewpoints or rationale they might have. Doing the reverse, and laying the blame all on one 'side' is nothing other than alienation.
All that being said, I don't particularly support the main Unionist parties. I think they're old and grey. I think their mentality is too entrenched in the past, too entrenched in religion and in the right wing. I have long said that it's time we had a unionist political party or movement which specifically seeks out the 'Roman Catholic' vote: the polling figures above seem to indicate that it could be a real possibility - around 40% of Roman Catholics currently support the Union, ideologically speaking.
I'm hoping that this new political party, NI21, is a step up to the challenge - a liberal and inclusive movement that supports the Union. One which Roman Catholics could feel they can vote for. I hope the many moderate 'Protestants' in the country are brave enough to ignore the fear of splitting and diluting the Unionist vote. Paisley has already done that damage, anyway.
I mentioned earlier, my own ideas of unionism. The root of 'unionism', it seems to me, is 'unite'. You cannot have a successful divisive unionism! Unionism needs to embrace ALL the people into its ideology. The idea itself is a good one, and I extend it to the current push for independence for Scotland. And to Cornwall and Wales.
Let's not split ourselves up into smaller, weaker statelets just because of some inaccurate romantic notions by Anglo-Irish writers and poets of the 19th century, or some fanciful notion of racial "Celtic" pride, or the idea that the English are the Evil, moustachioed, monocle- and cape-wearing Bad Guys.
When the 'English', in the shape of the Norman overlords, started building the nation state, the English peoples were probably treated every bit as badly as we Gaelic-lorded Irish had been. Yet why do we hear so little whinging about it from the English today?
It's the 21st century. Move on from the hatred!
1I reworded the poll question, as it had originally stated "reunify with the rest of Ireland". Northern Ireland has never been in union with the Republic of Ireland, so it isn't possible for it to 'reunify' with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment