Is nationalism the new unionism? An odd question, you say, but it is difficult to avoid the observation that in the fifty years from Terence O’Neill to Michelle O’Neill, sectarian domination did not go away, it just changed sides.
In Terence’s days (when the Troubles began) we had rioting, a lack of confidence in the police and the elevation of a government political party above the law, all overseen by a dysfunctional Stormont.
Michelle’s days are similar. Now the shoe is on the other sectarian foot, under an equally dysfunctional Stormont (as now belatedly recognised by the SDLP). Some nationalists deny the similarity. Others say it is payback time.
The denial stance has some merit in that Stormont’s former one party system is not directly comparable to current power-sharing. But today’s Stormont is built on that same institutionalised sectarianism, which Sinn Féin has exploited much better than the DUP.
The RUC was the armed wing of unionism, so we chanted “SS-RUC” during the civil rights marches. The police worked secretly with the Orange Order to allow parades showing unionism’s sectarian strength. Under today’s Stormont, the PSNI worked secretly with SF to allow it to hold a funeral procession in a possible breach of the law.
You can rightly argue that one funeral is not comparable to hundreds of parades. But the difference is in scale, not principle. Following the arrest of Gerry Adams, the late Bobby Storey said: “How dare they arrest our leader.” That view lived after him, because 2,000 SF members at his funeral were apparently also above the law, while two former members from Tyrone were not.
Prior to Simon Byrne’s selection, Mary Lou McDonald said she could not “identify” anyone in the PSNI who should be the new chief constable, leading to fears of a political appointment. (If Arlene Foster wanted to object to the new chief constable, that was the time to do it.) Would an internal appointee from the PSNI’s senior ranks have secretly negotiated with SF over funeral arrangements?
You see, people thought the Good Friday Agreement was about peace. But the parties knew it was about power and Sinn Féin has been best at attaining that power. On achieving it, they had a choice of republican priorities: anti-sectarian social and economic policies for uniting the Protestant and Catholic working class, or re-enacting de Valera’s reshaping of the police to protect political power.
They followed de Valera (and handed the Protestant working class to the DUP) and it has worked well for them. The DUP saw SF’s support for policing as a unionist victory, but then unionism understands little about Irish history. (de Valera’s next step was reshaping the civil service. Our parties are in a power struggle to appoint the new civil service head.)
Nationalism’s sectarian success is not surprising, but its triumphalism is a shock. Some nationalists have even suggested that Arlene Foster, whose people have been here for 400 years, should leave the country. Is Cromwell’s “To hell or Connacht” to become “To hell or England?”
Loyalist violence (which this column predicted) is wrong. But was Leo Varadkar right to brief EU leaders on the possibility of violence at an economic land border, while ignoring the possibility of violence over an Irish Sea border (the violence he now condemns)?
Responsibility for our present mess goes beyond unionism. It can also be traced to the post-Brexit demonisation of unionists by Dublin and Brussels and their betrayal by London over the Irish Sea border. Locally, both sides saw Brexit as an opportunity for victory, not a responsibility for compromise.
The shift in sectarian power is just different, not better. Sectarianism avoids addressing our huge social and economic inequalities and our failing public services. But who among our political parties has the humanity to see that, the selflessness to say it and the heart to do it?
Instead, they have just brought us back to where it all started.
