Time for unionists in NI to answer difficult questions?
In his latest News Letter column Alex Kane describes
‘unionist unity’ as the ‘idée fixe’ of unionism in Northern Ireland. He says that unionism lacks ‘coherence and
narrative drive’ and he points out that attempts to agree a ‘common set of
democratic principles’ among unionists have delivered ‘diddly squat’. It’s hard to disagree with any of that.
When this blog started out, in 2007, I wrote three posts
which tried to ‘define unionism’. They
were a bit rough and ready, and far too wordy, but I stick by many of my
ideas. In essence, I argued that it was
a sorry type of unionism that showed little or no interest in the rest of the
UK and was focused, mainly, on protecting certain aspects of Ulster Protestant
culture.
I’ve not changed that view, but, nine years later, I acknowledge
it was arrogant to suggest that ‘civic unionists’, as they were described, were
the real thing, while ‘cultural unionists’ were merely ‘Ulster
nationalists’. In 2016, with the SNP
dominating politics in Scotland, and Brexit reopening debate about the UK
constitution, anyone who supports the union between Northern Ireland and Great
Britain, whatever their motivation, is important to unionism.
When unionists appeal for ‘unionist unity’ they generally
have a single political party or an electoral pact in mind. That’s nearly always a bad idea, because it alienates
part of the pro-Union electorate and encourages the notion that unionism is
about the interests of only one part of the community in Northern Ireland.
High-minded objections to pacts look less convincing though, viewed
from somewhere like Fermanagh and South Tyrone, which now has an MP who takes
his seat at Westminster, after unionists from the UUP and DUP campaigned for
Tom Elliott, who beat Sinn Fein’s Michelle Gildernew.
There are now fewer clear distinctions between the two main
unionist parties. The UUP no longer has
its electoral link with the Conservative Party and the DUP is led by a moderate
politician, who started out in the Ulster Unionists. The parties attack each other habitually but,
while there are subtle differences between their policies, broadly their
principles are similar.
Under Mike Nesbitt’s leadership, the UUP has enjoyed some tactical
successes, partly because it is prepared to cooperate with the DUP. However, the party hasn’t articulated a
unique ‘big idea’ to capture voters’ attention and distance it from its unionist rival.
The UUP's decision to form an opposition, after the Assembly election,
gives it an opportunity to carve out a distinct role, but working harmoniously
with the SDLP might prove difficult while Colum Eastwood cranks up the nationalist
rhetoric. Ulster Unionists stayed mainly
silent, while their opposition partners used the Brexit result to challenge the
British government’s authority in Northern Ireland.
The referendum illustrated again how both main unionist
parties struggle to balance broader loyalties to the United Kingdom with their
regional mandate to represent Northern Ireland’s interests. Conservative activists locally regularly attack both the
UUP and the DUP on this basis, often with justification, alleging that they do
not engage properly with national politics.
Electorally, that argument hasn’t won much support, neither has it proved persuasive across the Tory party in Great Britain and it
ignores tensions that are inevitable where power is devolved to regional
institutions. In Scotland, for instance,
Labour and the Conservatives have struggled to compete against the SNP, which
presents itself as a champion of Scottish interests, with no competing
allegiances.
Both parties looked seriously at ways of distancing their
wings in Scotland from the national leaderships and the Conservatives revived
their fortunes only by finding a charismatic young leader and emphasising a
distinctly Scottish brand of unionism.
Against that backdrop, the liberal unionist MLAs, John
McCallister and Basil McCrea, chose to form a new party, NI21, rather than join
the Northern Ireland Tories. That was a
short-lived project, torn apart by internal rivalries, but it still outperformed
the NI Conservatives at the polls.
There’s not much prospect of a new unionist party, or one of
the existing pro-Union options, challenging the DUP and the UUP any time
soon. Neither can a single unionist
party reach all parts of the unionist electorate or win over voters from
backgrounds that aren’t traditionally associated with unionist parties.
Alex’s column mentions Peter Robinson’s support for a
‘council for the union’, which would span the various strands of pro-Union
opinion. There was understandable
scepticism about the then DUP leader’s intentions, but perhaps the best chance
of revitalising unionism in Northern Ireland is with this type of broad
discussion about its underlying principles. Then some of the best ideas, which haven’t yet
been reflected adequately by mainstream parties, can start to influence
unionist thinking more widely. If the
conversation is serious and restricted to finding the best way to promote the
union, it needn’t entail any important compromises.
That would mean examining carefully the merits of the modern
United Kingdom, the challenges it faces and the way that devolved regions, like
Northern Ireland, fit into national politics. What does it now mean to be British and how do
culture and identity shape political allegiance? Where do Irishness and other identities fit
into a modern definition of Britishness?
How do unionists balance more successfully loyalties to their regions
and loyalties to their nation state?
Will unionism have to change the way it looks at the constitution when
the UK leaves the EU?
The discipline of answering these difficult questions mightn’t
result in a single party or an electoral pact, but it could sharpen the way
unionists think about politics and help them assemble a more persuasive and
durable story around their ideas.
Comments