Demonising Sinn FÉin reflects fundamental differences of objective

Now the New Year reviving old desires

The thoughtful soul to solitude retires.

Well, so said the Persian poet Omar Khayyam in Edward Fitzgerald's famous translation of the Rubaiyat. But here at home, the politicians turn their thoughts once again to the North and the prospects of an elusive settlement to the crisis that has beset Irish politics, and Anglo-Irish relations, since the late sixties.

I can already hear my readers' groans at the mention of the North. The groans reveal that the mainstream of southern politics disengaged from the idea of reunification long ago, and seeks only an accommodation that allows peace and harmony to prevail where it matters – namely in the context of a developing relationship between Ireland and Britain.

In fact, despite occasional bursts of rhetorical fancy, reunification has not been a major concern of southern nationalism since the very foundation of the Free State. It played no part at all in the Civil War and the crisis brought about by the civil rights struggle in the North excited as much horror in establishment circles in Dublin as it did within Unionism.

The latest set of State Papers reveal that even when Britain was contemplating disengagement and withdrawal, the strongest opposition came from Dublin. In 1974, this was the work of the Cosgrave-led coalition between Fine Gael and Labour; but all the evidence indicates that Jack Lynch and Des O'Malley – the men who "stood idly by" in 1969 – supported the strategy.

Charlie Haughey, of course, breached that establishment consensus, by placing Irish nationalism on the agenda of legitimate politics – a crime for which he has earned lifetime of censure from The Irish Times. And Haughey's successors in Fianna Fáil have, by and large, followed that pro-active agenda.

The twists and turns of Bertie Ahern's policy show how he is pressured by the new realpolitik of good Anglo-Irish relations.

Bertie's commitment to the peace process cannot be in doubt, but his refusal to put make-or-break pressure on the British government to fulfil their obligations under the Agreement reflects a priority of interests that leaves Northern nationalists waiting in the wings.

The old establishment imperative is re-asserting itself vis-a-vis Unionism, for the solution that Dublin really wants is an accommodation between Dublin Catholic nationalism and Belfast Protestant Unionism, mediated by civil rights and an end to sectarian bigotry. It is not just Sinn Féin's voice, but also the SDLP's that is marginal to this project.

And the opposition parties' pressure on Fianna Fáil is to intensify that trend. Even the PDs in government see Republicanism as the major enemy and Unionism as a potential partner for peace and cross-border co-operation.

For many commentators, then, the Good Friday Agreement is an appalling vista, for what they want is the defeat of Republicanism. Alan Ruddock, writing in The Sunday Times, claims that accommodating Sinn Féin has subverted our democracy. But what democracy is that? The "democracy" of sectarian discrimination against Catholics? Or the "democracy" of British imperialism keeping a toe-hold in Ireland?

These are the internal pressures facing Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair in the coming weeks and months. And one thing is certain: Britain will offer no more than Dublin demands.

But the demonisation of Republicanism in the southern establishment makes it impossible, even for Unionism, to come to terms with equality: how can we, thunders Paisley, be asked to share power with Sinn Féin when southern parties refuse to do the same?

The two governments of course recognise that Republicanism has gone a massive distance to the point where the effective disbandment of the IRA is within grasp. They recognise that to miss that prize would throw an imponderable question mark over the whole process.

Eoin Ó Murchú is the Eagraí Polaitíochta of RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta. He is writing here in a personal capacity.