In his laureate speech in Oslo last Thursday, David Trimble quoted Eoghan Harris as writing that the best way forward for democrats is to carry out "acts of good authority". These are, according to Trimble, quoting Harris, acts addressed to their own side, the fulfilment of a moral obligation to deal with the fanatics on one's own side.
Asked what John Hume's great contribution to peace in Northern Ireland had been, David Trimble said in Oslo that it had been to enable nationalist Ireland to redefine itself, the essence of "good authority".
But in that compliment to Hume and in his (or Eoghan Harris's) invocation of "good authority", Trimble was drawing attention to his own very marked failure of "good authority".
Nationalist Ireland has transformed the meaning of Irish nationalism in the last 30 years. Before then the core of nationalism was a demand that the constitutional future of the island be determined by the people of Ireland as a whole. No partitionist caveat could prevail. In approving the Belfast Agreement by a majority of over 90 per cent on May 25th, nationalist Ireland signified its acceptance of redefinition of itself. A partitionist caveat could indeed prevail over the right of the people of Ireland to decide their constitutional future.
John Hume played an important part in that redefinition. So did others, including, let it be acknowledged, Trimble's unionist colleague, and Harris's mentor, Conor Cruise O'Brien.
Meanwhile, unionists have done not a jot to define unionism. Explanations for this may be found in their sense of siege over the last 30 years, siege not just at the hands of the IRA but through "mainland" alienation from their cause. But a further part of that explanation lies in the failure of the unionist leadership to prompt an examination of what was essential to unionism and what was incidental.
There can be only two "essentials" in unionism. The first is surely religious and civil liberty equally for all, consistent with often an opposing "right" to equal respect. The second is the "right" of the people of Northern Ireland to determine their own future. Everything else - decommissioning, policing, prisoner releases, North-South bodies, the number of executive positions - is incidental. Important, but incidental.
It has been the failure of unionism to redefine itself in such a way that has led to the impasse that we are now witnessing in the implementation of the Belfast Agreement. And David Trimble perhaps more than most has responsibility for that failure, a failure that has been most vivid over Drumcree.
I am not here referring to his reckless opportunism of 1995, 1996 and 1997 during the July standoffs. Rather I am referring in the first instance to his support for last July's Orange intransigence, before the murder of the Quinn brothers in Ballymoney, having just become First Minister (designate). And in the second instance his abdication now from the unfolding crisis there. He joined last July in the chorus which insisted that the very essence of Protestant civil and religious liberties was at stake in Drumcree, a chorus that must have echoed in the ears of those who burnt the Quinn boys in their home. Not much "good authority" there.
And not much "good authority" or any authority at all in his passivity towards a looming crisis this Christmas in his own constituency. Orange parades are planned throughout the Christmas period at Drumcree with a large demonstration planned for next Saturday. Could one imagine John Hume abdicating from "good authority" in Derry with a crisis looming there between the two communities? Could one envisage him failing to give the lead in talking to the elected representatives of the equivalent of the Garvaghy Road residents?
IT was the failure of "good authority" which obliged Trimble and his party to present the Belfast Agreement to the unionist community, before the May 25th referendum, in terms that were deeply misleading. And the tangled web woven by this kind of politics is the cause now of an impasse in the implementation of that agreement which may cause its collapse.
If decommissioning by the IRA was a precondition of Sinn Fein's participation in the new Northern Ireland executive, why wasn't it stated plainly in the Belfast Agreement? The answer is that it was not so stated because it wasn't a precondition.
That may be unfortunate: certainly it is less than ideal. But then Mr Trimble, as a new convert to the philosophy of Edmund Burke, knows that the best is often the enemy of the good.
Had David Trimble acted with "good authority" last April and May he would have given the unionist community a message along the following lines:
1. This agreement represents the first time that nationalist Ireland, including diehard republicans, has formally acknowledged the right of the people of Northern Ireland to determine their own future. Thus the essentials of unionism are guaranteed as never before.
2. Under the agreement we have a chance of peace, of stability and of a normal, secure, democratic society which we have never previously enjoyed.
3. This agreement gives us the chance to heal sectarian divisions, divisions that have blighted all our lives.
4. Of course, the agreement contains elements which we do not like - Sinn Fein can take part in an executive without even a start to IRA decommissioning - but its members must promise to adhere to peaceful democratic means and can be thrown out of the executive if they are found in breach of that commitment.
5. However repulsive the thought of Gerry Adams and pals being part of our government, is it not better than what went before?
6. There will indeed be other painful changes, such as the radical overhaul of the police force and the release of paramilitary prisoners, but again is this not a small price to pay for a chance (and it may be no more than a chance) of lasting peace and stability?
7. Of course, we cannot be certain that Sinn Fein's participation in all this process is not just another cynical republican ruse to dismantle the RUC, secure the release of their prisoners and make gains politically, but think of what they have to lose should they be found to be disingenuous.
8. Yes, perhaps this whole deal is in the nature of a gamble, but there are times when we should and must gamble when the gains to be made so massively outweigh the losses that may occur.
And one further point, Mr Trimble might add, again quoting himself (or is it Eoghan Harris?) quoting Edmund Burke: politicians seek to make a working peace, not in some perfect world that never was but in this, the flawed world, which is our only workshop.