Moving Towards the Future – Slowly
At one time it seemed as if the conflict in Northern Ireland – known locally as `The Troubles’ – would never end. In the words of many commentators, it was `a problem with no solution’.
Even in the worst of days I always argued that this was logically incoherent: no problem – with the possible exception of mathematics – can ever be said to have no solution, unless you can foresee all the things that may happen in the future which will change the context.
Yet the sense of despair was understandable.
Every gain by Unionists – who supported Northern Ireland remaining part of the United Kingdom – was seen as a loss by Nationalists – who wanted Northern Ireland united with the rest of Ireland (the Republic of Ireland, known locally as `The South’), and vice versa.
Republicans – mainly the IRA, led Gerry Adams – pursued nationalist aims through violence, the SDLP, under John Hume, did so non-violently. Loyalists pursued the unionist agenda violently, while other parties argued that they were constitutional supporters of the legal security forces. For their part, elements in the security forces controlled by the British Government, colluded with Loyalists in attacking Nationalists. They also ran high-level spies within the IRA whom they protected even when engaged in killings.
Republicans liked to present the conflict as a struggle against imperialism – an effort to free Ireland from the oppressors. Unionists and the British Government saw it as a fight against criminal terrorists.
The cost was appalling – over 3,500 deaths in a population of 1.5 million. The consequences of the conflict are still with us. Even now, 12 years after the IRA ceasefire, people are presenting themselves to health professionals with trauma arising from the conflict. A large amount of government funding goes towards `victims’ or `survivors’ (people are divided about what term to use for those deeply affected by the conflict). The British Government has resisted calls for enquiries into actions of the security forces. Republicans support them because they hope they can expose Human Rights abuses by the Government, while choosing to ignore the atrocities they themselves carried out.
Yet if you come to Northern Ireland today you will find very few security check points on the roads. You will see the two most divided groups – Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, and the DUP, the party founded by Ian Paisley, a bitter anti-Catholic and anti-Republican bigot – in government together. Indeed, Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness – another IRA leader, seemed to get on so well together when they held the top posts in the administration that they were known as `the chuckle brothers’.
The government has limited powers, devolved from the British Government. It is a power-sharing Government: this means that no important law can be passed without the consent of the majority of both Unionists and Nationalists.
For each side this represents an extraordinary compromise: Unionists, especially the DUP, have reversed their absolute refusal to go into government with those they saw as terrorists – the IRA. For their part, the IRA have gone into a parliament while Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom.
There were many factors which helped to bring about this transformation. The British and Irish Governments played an important role. In 1985 under the Anglo-Irish Agreement they agreed to a new definition of the conflict. No longer would the British see it as simply an internal problem or the Irish see it as a colonial problem. Instead they both agreed to see the conflict as a problem of a double minority: Nationalists are a minority within Northern Ireland, Unionists are a minority within the context of the whole island. Nationalists fear and resent discrimination, and being cut off from their perceived national home – the South. Unionists fear the Catholic Church which they see as a monolith dedicated to the conversion of Protestants, and they fear the IRA. In each case these fears and perceptions were understandable. Because of the Agreement they are less firmly held today.
The two Governments also set up a framework within which politics in Northern Ireland would have to operate. This was a crucial element. It meant that the Governments would not agree to devolve power to any parliament within Northern Ireland without the consent of both Unionists and Nationalists. Any devolved parliament would have to operate on the basis of a modified form of democracy – what we call power sharing. For politicians, hungry for power, this was both a carrot and a stick: if they wanted to get power they had to find a way to work with their enemies.
Military stalemate was a second factor. Neither the British army or the IRA could defeat the other. Eventually the IRA recognised this. But, crucially, they also seized an opportunity to make political progress. This was not easy for them not only because the majority of Nationalists refused to vote for them because of their violence, but also because historically they themselves saw any moves by Republicans towards politics as betraying their cause. Yet when Margaret Thatcher faced down the Hunger Strikers of 1981 (a hunger strike brought on by attempts by the British Government to treat IRA prisoners as criminals), the IRA used the sympathy evoked by the death of the Hunger Strikers to put their members up for election – and they won. That was the start of their political journey.
Other important political elements were the extraordinary commitment of British Prime Minister Tony Blair to work on the conflict and the quality of his relationship with Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, the fact that both the British and Irish Governments were members of the EU, the help of successive US administrations, and the on-going commitment of the majority nationalist party, the SDLP, to tough negotiations.
Much work also went on within the community. As Jesuits we had opened a house in Portadown in 1981, and a second in Belfast in 1987. In each case we tried to work for peace and justice. Sometimes these seemed to be in conflict, as in Portadown when we supported Nationalists who opposed unionist parades through their neighbourhood, thereby provoking the resentment of many Protestants. On other occasions we vigorously opposed the IRA or abuses by the security forces.
We also facilitated many dialogues between opposing groups. Sometimes this meant setting up quiet meetings between opposing leaders, sometimes meeting paramilitaries to build a relationship with them and to try to correct false ideas they had about the other side.
One initiative was to take part in setting up a group that for 10 years ran dialogues between large groups of Unionists and Nationalists. Among the participants were paramilitaries and members of the security forces, people whose relatives had been killed, and people belonging to the organisations which had killed them.
The dialogues were difficult. Yet the most difficult part was to persuade people to take part in them. Once they were in the room there was always conflict. But nearly always this was followed by a degree of understanding: people learned why the others did what they did. It often turned out that their aim was to protect themselves, not destroy the other side. Further, people learnt that the other side were nowhere near as strong, or intelligent, or united as they had thought.
Also, since these dialogues started with a critical question –`What is it that you really want?’ – participants were gradually able to question their own side and their own position: they became more critical politically, and this helped them to play a better leadership role within their own community.
Today there are on-going difficulties in Northern Ireland: in March three members of the security forces were killed by Dissident Republicans – small groups which have broken away from the main IRA. We remain a divided society – more so now, than in 1998, the year of power-sharing Good Friday Agreement. There is much sectarianism and racism.
Yet, despite this, I think our peace process has been a success. We are slowly learning to live with each other. The political institutions are now in place and seem stable. The vast majority of people are committed to peace. The dialogue which has been done has led to a considerable, if limited, degree of understanding. Because of all these I think we will not go back to the bad old days.
That is a blessing.
Note: This article was first publised in Populi, a journal based in Rome, on 6 April 2009.
Biographical note: Brian Lennon is a Jesuit working on dialogue between divided groups in Northern Ireland. His most recent book is: So You Can’t Forgive?...Moving Towards Freedom (Dublin: Columba, 2009. Available from www.columba.ie).