Relax the constraints of fear and orthodoxy and political Unionism goes to pieces…

The spat between Sammy Wilson MP and Lord Empey following the disclosure by Reverend Harold Good that the DUP was engaged in private talks with Sinn Féin whilst lambasting the UUP and promising to smash those who were sitting across the table, resulted in comment on various media; not however on a scale comparable to the past.

Nowadays, few are surprised at anything the DUP has done.The disclosure adds to the toxicity and duplicity of a political unionism strapped into electoral declinism; struggling for political air yet not strategic enough to stop the electoral slide or extend the politically possible.

The quarrel echoed Unionism in 1998. More than 25 years afterwards, a growing constituency has moved on; has different priorities.

There is no universal feeling that those who are pro-Union can be well served by self-proclaimed ‘saviours of the Union’ who may have said ‘never, never, never ‘but betrayed promises they should not have made in the first place.

The resulting cracks in the foundations of political unionism are laid bare. Election results, voter indifference and low attendance at party conferences where obsession with burdens, symbols and tradition ruled OK, prove the point.

Historical breadth shaped by communal demographics has been proven to be unmatched by political depth. Relax the constraints of fear and orthodoxy and political Unionism goes to pieces.

The situation, as the end of 2024 approaches, presents not the tests and trials of 1998 but fresher challenges shaped by attitudinal, social and demographic changes to which former DUP strategist and SPAD, Lee Reynolds referred recently when suggesting, amongst other changes, that the DUP should alter its name.

I can’t believe it’s not butter comes to mind. Concerned to keep the NI Assembly in place, political rhetoric and point-scoring of the past has been toned down. Even the faithful, recognising that unionism often contributed to the success of its opposition, no longer welcome reference to crocodiles or curry my yoghurt.

Unionism however is seen as not merely in need of repair but reform.

It is known that the leaders and officers of unionist political groupings are aware of this but they seem hemmed in and weighed down by timidity and fear of party turbulence; unable or unwilling to create the necessary head-space in the face of unionist unreality.

It is reasonable to address concerns without acquiescing to a stranglehold of irrational taboos.However, waiting out the storm is no solution.

The absence of any considered long-term party-political strategy for a positive and admittedly challenging response to the breaking down of the traditional binary mould to which unionism contributed, serves only to feed disengagement and irrelevancy.

Initiatives, added to flawed and damaging policy decisions, appear piecemeal.Too easily, they slip back into the ruts of default indecision and inaction.  As a consequence, any sense of purposeful mission and renewal has for some time been moving into a more dynamic pro-Union civic space; released into new opportunities.

It is here that what Alex Kane has referred to as the rustling of slow change in the undergrowth is at its least quiet. Unsurprisingly, this being unionism, there is a variety of groups, hubs, think-tanks, agendas and programming.

Some, not yet completely free from inter-generational ethno-centrism which in the past was carried like a loaded gun, feeling what they perceive as heritage and culture diminished and demonised, seem primarily energised, in the face of ineffective and disconnected political representation, to re-claim ‘lost’ space for their communal identity as they imagine it.

Believing that what you feel is the way things really are and must be, continues to sustain a stubborn, if diminishing, link between identity and politics.

Emotions and inherited half-truths trump clear thinking. Commenting on his friend Dolours Price, Eamonn McCann mused that sometimes “we are trapped within our ideals.” It hasn’t gone away across the political spectrum. Irish republicanism exhibits the same traits.

However, within pro-Union discourse which is slowly gathering momentum, a realisation is emerging to produce a more nuanced understanding that the diversity of Northern Ireland’s political, economic, social and cultural landscape is demanding radical thinking and actions; that this is to be valued and channelled into collaborative and reconciled positivity.

Any inclination to return to traditional routes, lingering in some quarters, is recognised as a forlorn hope; to be discouraged as models of better practice emerge, many within a community development context seeking to develop leadership; inclusive and future focused.

Within an, as yet, loose coming together of pro- unionist groups and individuals, there is clarity in regard to the imperative of leaving fortress unionism and cultural and political antagonism in the past; to expand the boundaries of what is possible.

On occasions, with the need to build confidence within communities still largely segregated, the necessary balance between inter-and intra- collaboration falters. This is due in no small way to funding streams which operate within a PUL-CRN structure in need of re-appraisal with a marked shift in how individuals live an increasingly cultural hybrid existence; embedded in greater fluidity in terms of identity.

Also, in spite of for some time being exposed to a mostly Belfast based cottage industry of problem focused commentators, there is an evidence-based appreciation that Northern Ireland is not the economic ‘failed state’ that is portrayed; that it can work for all regardless of background, political and religious persuasion, or none.

It is not yet where it needs to be in terms of regional equality or infrastructure but progress is occurring. Ironically, economic and social progress is freeing pro-Union voters to withdraw support for Unionist parties. They are not the commodity they once were.

Politically, the Good Friday Agreement has not yet been fully delivered across all 3 strands nor in addressing issues which were shrouded in ‘constructive ambiguity’; but the mechanisms to build consensus remain.

What has unionism to fear from its implementation provided governments in Dublin resist over-egged calls from NI nationalists, political and politically camouflaged, to establish an echo chamber mechanism to plan for the separation of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom?

Apart from sailing close to irredentism and re-instating Articles 2 and 3, in spirit if not in law, poll after poll points to there being no desire for what the aim of such planning seeks to deliver.

All ‘inner-shinners’ in Dublin must know this.

Herein, lies an opportunity for positivity and further progress. But non-aligned pro-union voices can only do so much and look to elected representatives to lead the change.

It needs to begin within, for it is the outside that reflects the inner with political unionism akin to a set of Russian dolls where there is always one last doll remaining.

This need for change has been hinted at by both Mike Nesbitt MLA and Gavin Robinson MP at their respective party conferences but there is little evidence of any actions flowing from the rhetorical intentionality.

Indeed, the opinions of the yet to be convinced who look for conformity to a sectarian past are too easily sanitized or provided with political cover.

Is it that they cling to the past because they don’t like the look of the future that is unfolding? The violence against immigrants provided an uncomfortable example. Is it that the premise for change is flawed? Is it tactical rather than radically and ethically strategic; survivalist rather than principled?

Has Unionism established a context to think through and acknowledge problems further back; to avoid repeating the mistakes which it made before and since October 5 1968? Superficial answers will only bring temporary respite; if at all? Is it time to become less Union -essentialist and more pro-union; embroidered not with flags and symbols but humanity?

Polling and election results suggest this is the direction of travel as historical allegiances weaken; as many voters and non-voters focus less on labels and identity and are less fixed on only one facet of an issue with socio-economic concerns impacting, to a greater or lesser extent, regardless of baptismal, educational or social status.

With many former unionists no longer identifying as unionist but supporting the current constitutional position, political unionism continues to falter.

The newly published polls in the Belfast Telegraph must make for uncomfortable reading.

Talk of inclusion, progress and reconciliation is currently just talk as within communities, the politics of living costs, renting or buying a home, rates, job security, domestic and child abuse, global change, policing, lack of value for money scrutiny and accountability within government and the emergence of a two-tiered health system become more personal to the needs of families and individuals.

Silo conversations about Irish language schools, flags, parades, who or doesn’t wear a poppy, attends a GAA or football match and border polls have and are becoming boring and tiresome.

It is obvious that large sections of the electorate have switched off and want to get on with their lives. Conversations that took place 30 years ago are not the right conversations for today.

Unionism needs to catch up; reflect beyond planter and gael, de-sectarianise and normalise its politics for good. Mike Nesbitt MLA and UUP leader has often claimed the party has the best policies.

If so, is it the case that the UUP and other unionist parties need to grasp the future, change the packaging and the core messaging; bring people together?

Being less judgemental, denominationally unaligned, label focused and shedding some of the baggage of a privileged property class concerned with wealth creation but not its socially just distribution, might also help.

Looking from the outside, it appears that, apart from the TUV, Unionist parties lack clarity of purpose. Actions suggesting fine-grained analysis are not apparent.

Reservations about the 1998 Agreement seem to have diminished but there remain factional prejudices pertaining to LGBTQ issues, education, Dealing with the Past and the Irish language; blind to broader constituencies.

Added into this mix is the legacy of institutional allegiances to the Loyal Orders.

These mitigate against consensus within the often common memberships; a block to change as the old doom-laden view of the ‘enemy within’ continues to carry undue influence.

As long as this persists, political unionism will become hermetically sealed into its current drift and on the lowest rung of expectation; too willing to settle for an unaccountable distribution of power that is shedding trust and support.