THESE are hard times for the professional Pollyanna. Events in Dunloy on Sunday night signal the end of a predictable marching season and leave little scope for future optimism. Posturing at the Stormont multi party talks is a reminder that the hangover of Drumcree has carried over into negotiations. We have drunk deep at the well of despond and await the passing of biliousness. The Irish Times poll does little to assuage our fears. Yesterday's editorial - ". . . now there is regression and scepticism, and a general air of pessimistic uncertainty" - says it all.
Yet we need to be careful relying overmuch on opinion polls in a conflict as complex and volatile as that centred in Northern Ireland. The late John Whyte argued that opinion poll questions often forced respondents into spurious precision about their opinions and squeezed out nuance and ambiguity.
In his carefully understated manner he wrote that "in the case of Northern Ireland ... surveys may not give accurate results because not all respondents tell the truth". In the present tense, what we need to do is not to concentrate so much on quantitative data but to search out the nuances. We need to invent an Irish version of Kremlinology.
Polls can present a helpful snapshot - even if shot through a distorting lens. That is precisely what we have here. The questions in The Irish Times poll were concerned with immediate "procedural" issues - such as the role of third party intervention and alternative methods of protest; and with final status issues on the nature of a constitutional settlement. The responses are typically good and bad. What they have in common is that they reflect the temper of the times, and it is that we must address.
A few days before the siege of Drumcree, a senior Northern Ireland civil servant warned me that the situation was bleak. At that stage, I imagined that even he did not expect mere anarchy to be released on the tide. We could comfort ourselves that the British government would have had some civil contingency planning in place.
INSTEAD, throughout the summer we have had that well tried pastime of political leadership of "playing the popular engine" - that is, calling out the mobs and then appealing for calm. When this did not happen they entered the second mode, what has now become a cottage industry in dissembling. Unless we take this on board we do not begin to understand the grounds for pessimism.
Pessimism ought not be the property solely of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland. A contrast of Derry and Drumcree makes the point. Political leadership and local pride demonstrated the degree to which Northern Ireland is not a monolith. But it also throws into relief questions of leadership at governmental level.
The issue of an independent review of marches and parades has been near the top of the political agenda for some years now. The British government resisted it for a year in the aftermath of Drumcree 95. Yet now we have the review to be chaired by Sir Peter North to look precisely at this question. If it was not deemed suitable in 1995-96, is one being cynical in wondering why it has been called into play at this time? Perhaps the simple explanation is an acknowledgment that serious mistakes were made.
More importantly, it could be the beginning of wisdom because it can begin to address one of the central elements in the Northern Ireland conflict - the nature of a demotic culture. The summer demonstrated the political elite's ability to bring people into the streets - followed swiftly by their inability to control them.
Herein lies the significance of the boycott issue. It is an insidious and potentially uncontrollable practice. It needs little organisation save word of mouth and local knowledge. It has a capacity to undermine any burgeoning community relationships. It is unattributable. The response to that particular question in the poll (50 per cent of those questioned said that boycotts were likely to disimprove community relations) illustrates that we have not totally lost our collective state of mind.
Optimism of the spirit - but pessimism of the intellect - lies in response to the question about intervention by both governments. The response (57 per cent believe that the governments had a role to play) acknowledges two realities: the three stranded approach is central to the process; the communities in Northern Ireland have neither the emotional nor political capacity to hammer out a settlement at present.
BUT it may be overshadowed by a larger factor - concerning the Republic's constitutional claim and the options for political development. The diversity in opinion in responses to both of these questions reflects a black hole of fear and uncertainty. We should never underestimate the degree of political paranoia extant in Northern Ireland.
An inkling of that paranoia surfaces in response to the question about the role of American interest - 47 per cent said it helps the peace process; 43 per cent said it hinders the attempt to secure a settlement. Prestigious third party intervention is not an uncommon feature in conflict resolution for deeply divided societies. We believed we had witnessed a manifestation of our gratitude to the US when President Clinton visited Ireland last December. We recognised too the consummate political skills of Senator Mitchell and his two colleagues - in chairing a hopeless situation at Stormont before the summer. What we may not have done is pay proper due to the Mitchell Report itself, and that may be because we examined it too much in the context of decommissioning.
Mitchell presents us with a fundamental opportunity and challenge. The latter is about our attitude towards violence - or its threat. The summer demonstrated that we had not yet gauged the distance between politics and violence. Mitchell asks questions not just of the paramilitaries but of more substantial citizens in our society. It challenges ambiguity by laying down the ground rules for a properly democratic process. For that very reason it may be unwelcome.
Of course, that is not the only elective process in play at the moment. Our own surreal adventure on May 30th threw up predictability, but also the challenge of the Women's Coalition and the other fringe parties. One of our key players, Sir Patrick Mayhew, is seeing out the dying days of his political career. The same may be true for the Prime Minister. Will their legacy be that they oversaw a hangover? Or will they accept the challenge of the new?
Milan Kundera wrote that "the source of fear is in the future, and a person freed of the future has nothing to fear". The summer should have convinced us that we have very little to learn from the past. The Irish Times poll has underlined that point. After the hangover comes sobriety and atonement. It is an opportunity to plan for the future. It is the source of fear we must confront.
