Northern Ireland’s unionist political leaders have shared many stages in the past to oppose the Anglo-Irish Agreement, restrictions on Drumcree marches in the 1990s, or the various chapters of Brexit.
On each such occasion, those watching may have understood what those unionist leaders were against, but they will rarely have been sure about the future they offered to those listening to them.
Is it possible, however, to imagine unionist leaders putting forward a positive, optimistic, generous, open vision of a Northern Ireland content inside the United Kingdom with the same energy and purpose?
Or, to put it more bluntly, can political unionism paint a vision of a better future for everyone in Northern Ireland, rather than presenting itself often as being unable to do much about a worsening one?
READ MORE
The reason this is so difficult to imagine is because political unionism for decades has always struggled miserably to deal with the tension caused between hankering after the past, and being fearful about the future.
For many of them, the former evokes memories of belonging and security, but the latter surely requires creativity, reflexivity and imagination to meet the uncertainties of the world to come.
Political unionism remains stuck between these two poles, harking back to a past that cannot be recovered, but unable to use its own heritage to demonstrate unionism’s relevance to today.
This problem became especially acute after the 1998 Belfast Agreement: Sinn Féin used that moment to develop a transformed image through new forms of political representation.
In the wake of the agreement, divided unionists, though, largely stood still, unable to mobilise the hope and expectations of the moment to demonstrate the value and benefit of change that it could bring.
[ Unionists must ask themselves: ‘is this as good as it gets?’Opens in new window ]
Not surprisingly, unionism’s tendency to avoid building a future of co-operation and powersharing has meant it has been unable to develop productive social and political relationships since.
If these failings are not confronted and addressed, unionism’s social and political significance will continue to diminish, reduced to a relic of missed opportunities, undermining the value of the union as they do.
Without working to create and shape a future of possibilities and advancements the political message offered by unionist leaders of all hues, to different degrees, is stuck between pessimism and depression.
How might this be addressed? Firstly, Northern Ireland’s unionist parties should work together and agree a set of principles that emphasise public and social responsibilities, rather than focusing on differences and divisions.
So, perhaps, I can offer a few ideas.
- Create employment opportunities through better education and investment;
- Be open to ideas for change wherever they come from;
- Commit to citizenship and civic responsibility through fairness, decency and respect;
- Adopt creative and pragmatic approaches to divisive social and political issues;
- Confront sectarianism, discrimination and prejudice;
- Build social cohesion based on social justice and democratic values;
- Develop relations with those outside of the Union to support change;
- Promote the common good;
- Recognise and encourage difference;
- Prioritise accountability and a commitment to public service.
Bearing in mind that the devil is not in the detail but, as always, lies in the interpretation, one can debate, I fully accept, the meaning and definition of the principles that are outlined here.
However, one should not lose sight of the main goal, which is to promote the validity and integrity of unionist politics through social co-operation rather than through division, as happens too often today.
By focusing on the delivery of and commitment to public service and accountability, a new and decent politics could emerge in Northern Ireland that goes beyond the limiting demands of tribal appeal.
Important, too, is the need for recognition that any demonstrable delivery of such principles must be based on maximising benefits for all and not some at the expense of others.
These principles to build a decent society are not only hard to argue against, but they would encourage unionism to think beyond divisions of identity and geography and work to achieve a common good.
Unionism must rethink everything if it wants to hold on to what it cherishes, but especially it must rethink the language it uses – which is often negative, antagonistic, sometimes downright unpleasant.
Words like “safeguarding” are defensive, but “transforming”, for example, concentrates on the positive, while “making Northern Ireland work” implies that the place does not. Instead, say “making Northern Ireland better for all”.
Communicating fear in a bid to generate solidarity would do little to meet the challenges and opportunities facing Northern Ireland as it faces the years ahead even if it were a far less complicated place than it is.
The reinforcement of a sense of loss and defeat does give meaning to group identity but seeing the world in hard black and white, or win or lose, does nothing to generate collaboration.
Without examples of effective and respectful collaboration to address problems, fears become more entrenched, further exacerbating the divisive atmosphere in which they thrive.
Declarations of certainty may be reassuring but they are unrealistic and cement polarisation. Unionism must recognise that much of what it has been doing is self-defeating, offers nothing news and only hinders change.
By meeting social needs and demonstrating a commitment to serving the public as a whole, political unionism could begin to become a more expansive and progressive force for good in Northern Ireland.
If it were to try, it could chime with both the challenges and opportunities of today, rather than harking back to a past that is gone. Whether unionist politicians can see, or be made to see, value in this is another matter entirely.
