The Other View

Vox Populi, Vox Dei?

By Eugene Byrne

George Bernard Shaw is reputed to have once said that England and America are two countries divided by a common language. Something similar might be said about the people of Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement. Two groups of people at odds with each other in their attempts to enact the details of what their political representatives agreed on Good Friday 1998 and the people as a whole endorsed by referendum some weeks later.

A stranger to Northern Irish politics would surely find the situation difficult to understand. Supporters and leaders of the largest unionist party are adamant that there can be no peace, progress and prosperity in Northern Ireland until the terms of the Good Friday Agreement are implemented in full. By a quare coincidence, their opponents in the two main republican and/or nationalist parties appear to be saying exactly the same thing.

A visitor might be forgiven for asking why there is any conflict since so many are demanding exactly the same thing. The answer of course is that there are many different interpretations of several key aspects of the Good Friday Agreement.

Respected observers have pointed to the possibility that the understandable desire of the governments in London and Dublin to construct an agreement may have caused them to move too rapidly. These commentators have suggested that certain ambivalence surrounded some of the crucial elements of the agreement and this may indeed highlight real difficulties for all ment and this may indeed highlight real difficulties for all parties to the settlement.

Whatever the merits of these observers¹ comments, it is undeniable that many republicans and/or nationalists hold a perception of current political life that is at variance with the opinions of many unionist people.

One of the most basic areas of difference surrounds the concept of sharing the administration of Northern Ireland. Many unionists believe that they are showing an astonishing degree of tolerance by agreeing to share the tasks of local government with republicans and nationalists. They point out that there is no legal requirement in other democracies for a minority to be included in government and there is almost no precedent for recent enemies to insist on participation in the new administration.

This perception is not, though, shared by most members of the republican/nationalist community. Within the republican community in particular, there is a widely held view that they are meeting a major concession to unionism and making an enormous compromise in their own core beliefs by participating in the Northern Ireland administration. Many republicans have found it very difficult to come to terms with any form of participation in Stormont. They argue that after having struggled for years to end the entity that is Northern Ireland, it is a significant about turn for them to now accept the de facto continuation of the status quo vis a vis the union with Britain.

Other members of the nationalist community say that in a divided society such as Northern Ireland, it is pointless looking at other societies where there are no Œconstitutional Œ disputes for example. They say that we need a unique arrangement for this area and if that entails power sharing, then unionist should simply accept it as the price for the continuing existence of the state.

There are similar differences of opinion with many other issues.

Republicans often say that policing is an example of very different perceptions. Many unionist people see the Patten Report recommendations as emasculating their first line of protection. Nationalists on the other hand believe that the Patten Report was in itself a major compromise and that the onus is on the British Government and unionism in general to convince them that the policing of Northern Ireland will be conducted fairly and properly.

The differences surrounding marching and where to march are well known but worth repeating in order to understand the different positions. Unionists see marching as a traditional and cultural right reinforced by the more contemporary right of freedom of assembly. Nationalists still however, say that they find some marches offensive and moreover, - they say that the right to march in Northern Ireland is not universal. They say that for example, nationalists are unlikely to be permitted to march along many loyalist streets. Therefore, they still feel that they shall not stop opposing marches in places such as Drumcree and/or Lower Ormeau Road.

The question of arms and decommissioning has reached epic proportions in its ability to cause disagreement. While there is no single nationalist view on this matter - some actually favour decommissioning - many republicans remain to be convinced that disarming in the present climate is advisable. They point to ongoing attacks by loyalist hard-liners and repeatedly state that in the absence of an overwhelming consensus that it is better to be safe than sorry.

Crossborder bodies and ministerial councils remain top of the priority list for many nationalists. They see these as the only evidence of constitutional compromise by the unionist family. The recent restrictions placed by the first minister David Trimble on Martin McGuinness and Bairbre De Brun is taken as evidence of unionist reluctance to enter into meaningful partnership.

All taken together, it is clear that the difficulties recorded by David McCombe in his survey of Unionist people find an echo in nationalist areas. The areas of concern are not always the same but without doubt people have sharply differing opinions on a number of very important issues.

It is not the objective of this article to offer suggestions to the people involved. All we can say here is that it is almost always better to have opinions aired than concealed.

Back to Contents