Uniting the country is a pre-condition to uniting the hearts and minds, not the other way around

The heightened crisis in Northern Ireland demands a re analysis of the situation there and an attempt to describe the basis of a solution which, ultimately, will end violence. By Vincent Browne

The very nature of the Northern state is pre-disposed to violence. It is founded on a sectarian basis and therefore inevitably has become a breeding ground for sectarianism. Discrimination and repression are endemic to it. So too is violence, both as a means of repression and as a reaction to the state.

It was hoped for years that Northern Ireland could be transformed into a normal democratic state, with guaran teed rights for all citizens, an end to repression and a pha sing out of sectarianism. Were such an option available now it would be difficult to argue against that as the best pos sible solution to the problem — those who wanted a united Ireland would have to rely solely on sentiment and/or agg randisment to sustain their cause.

But this is not an option that is available. The nature of the state in Northern Ireland precludes the creation of a normal democracy — the democratic process has been rigged from the outset. The state owes its origin and conti nued existence to the bald fact that a line was drawn around a territory in the northern part of Ireland that (a) was large enough to be a viable entity and (b) wasn't so large as to threaten the dominance of the unionist majority.

Those who might have hoped that the old antagonisms would fade away with time were disillusioned by the inten sified sectarianism in job allocation in the new industries es tablished in the North during the ‘sixties when, incidentally, there was no IRA campaign to “provoke” loyalists into such depredations. There was also the fact that it took a militant civil rights movement, augmented by pressure from the British Government, to concede the basic right of one person-one vote in local government elections, for instance. Housing policies throughout the “liberal” sixties were just as discriminatory as they ever had been and of course Cat holics remained excluded from the centres of power — re member they weren't even allowed join the Unionist Party?

In the light of all this it is hard to blame the IRA vio lence for what amounts to no more than a continuance of this discriminatory practice in the behaviour of the loyalist majority in the last decade. The RUC and UDR have been deeply sectarian, in spite of well-intentioned efforts by a number of politicians and senior RUC officers to have it otherwise. The power-sharing executive, which involved Catholics in office for the first time, was brought down by loyalist reaction and since then all loyalist parties have opposed any form of power-sharing, no matter what guarantees are given on the constitutional issue

The whole thrust of loyalism is anti-Catholic. True, this is given a sharper edge by the IRA campaign, but the direc lion of loyalist politics is well-established of its own propul sion.

There is therefore no reason to believe that any meaning. flu reform can be achieved in Northern Ireland which would create normal stable and democratic conditions — this is not because of the existence of an armed insurrection on the part of the IRA; the armed insurrection would go away if a fair, equitable democratic society could be estab lished. But it can't.
T he logic of this analysis is that the state of Northern Ireland must be ended. The only realistic alternative to that state, given the history of Britain and Ireland over the last century or so, is a united Ireland on terms absolutely fair to the unionists. The old cliche of first uniting hearts and minds and then uniting the country is upside down. It will be impossible to unite the hearts and minds so long as the Northern state exists. Uniting the country is a pre-con dition to uniting the hearts and minds, not the other way around.

Therefore, the thrust of southern Irish politics should be towards (a) convincing the British that it is imperative to move towards a united Ireland, if any long term solution to the problem is going to be found and (b) creating those conditions in the South now which would convince the unionists, or go some way towards convincing some unio nists, thlit a united Ireland would be absolutely fair and equitable.

A policy that has got to be abandoned is the concept of unity by consent. If politicians here actually mean this they are talking nonsense. Were consent on anything possible in the North (e.g., consent on the establishment of a democra tic non-sectarian state within the 6 counties) there would be no problem and we wouldn't have to bother about it one way or another. The problem is that there is no possibility of consent on anything. Therefore to talk of any solution being based on consent is fatuous. It is unpopular and pos sibly dangerous to say it but the solution to the Northern Ireland problem must come about in the absence of consent.

We can mihimise the resultant reaction to such an initia tive by taking dramatic action in the south which would convince objective observers and, hopefully, some unionists, that we were serious about c conditions in the south scrupulously fair to all minorities. For a start we should en courage a confrontation with the Catholic church on the issues of divorce and/or integrated education to assert the independence of church and state. We should follow this up with a campaign to get rid of practices and attitudes in the southern state which are, quite properly, objectionable to Protestants — e.g., the ubiquitous presence of Catholic bis hops at State functions, the playing of the Angelus on RTE, etc.

We should strengthen the sections in our constitution dealing with individual rights and get rid of that section (Article 28, 3, 3) which abrogates all constitutional rights following the declaration of a state of war or national emer gency (a declaration of an emergency has been in existence since 1939, except for a few weeks in 1976).

It wifi be argued that this course of action would lead inevitably to more violence and bloodshed and so it would. But we are not given a choice between more violence and peace. The choice is between more violence leading no where and more violence leading towards some sort of ulti
mate solution.

Vincent Browne