23 April 1998 Edition
Wondering about democracy
By Mary Nelis
In his book, ``The Framework of Home Rule'', the late Erskine Childers wrote that the unionist resistance to Irish nationalism was inspired not by racialism or fear for the Protestant faith, but by ``a deep rooted hatred of democratic principles and practices''.
One has only to study the history of unionism in both Ireland and England, from the Act of Union to the present so-called agreement, to understand the outworking of such hatred.
The Act of Union (1801) is now used by Trimble to reassure unionism that undemocratic government in the north will still prevail despite the removal of the Government of Ireland Act 1920.
The Act of Union is a sordid, undemocratic and corrupt piece of British legislation, which has underpinned the British undemocratic presence in Ireland. In fact the British Liberal Prime Minister Gladstone, describing the beginning of Irish unionism, said the Act; was ``an engine of wholesale corruption, in which we obtained that union against the sense of every class of the community, by wholesale bribery and unblushing intimidation''.
The Act of Union was the response by the British to the 1798 Rebellion. The United Irish Movement, inspired by the French Revolution, sought to bring about the unity of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter, under the democratic principles of Liberty, Equailty and Fraternity. It sent shivers down the spine of British imperialists, busily expanding their colonial regimes throughout the world.
The Rebellion was put down in a particularly vicious manner and Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter suffered the same barbaric cruelty by the British and Irish militia.
The Act of Union consolidated imperialist power in Ireland and effectively retarded all economic developments to the degree that it created conditions for the great starvation forty five years later. More significantly, it created among the unionists a mindset which is found today in the ethos of the Orange Order. The ``no surrender'', ``not an inch'' mentality has not changed because Trimble and Paisley fundamentally disagree on the best way to reconstruct the Orange state, twenty seven years after direct rule.
Their primary objective, and it was reflected in the talks process, is to retain absolute power without recognising the rights of the people to be ruled democratically. They have always believed and have been supported by the British, that because nationalists opposed the undemocratic partition of their country they were not entitled to equal rights.
When Tony Blair jetted in to rescue the unionists at the talks impasse, he stated that he felt the hand of history on his shoulder. Many hands of British Prime Ministers have shaped the history of Ireland. Perhaps Blair had forgotten that partition was established, not by democratic means, but by threat of war.
Perhaps he has forgotten that on the eve of the First World War, the UVF was armed by weapons brought from the German government, whilst Westminster turned a blind eye. Perhaps he has forgotten that the British set up and armed the B-Specials whose membership was drawn from the UVF and who were described by the Daily Mail at the time ``as the very people who have been looting Catholic shops and driving thousands of Catholic women and children from their homes''.
Blair and the unionists talk of the violence of the past thirty years, with the historical amnesia of those who, long before 1969, equipped the armed wings of unionism, the B-specials, the RUC, the UVF, the UDA with the guns which were used to terrorise the Catholic community in the north for fifty years, before nationalists rose to defend themselves.
When the nationalists asked for equality of citizenship during the Civil Rights campaign, the British Labour government responded by conferring extra powers to Stormont, ``to allow it to pass any law it pleases to increase the power of the British army''.
The rights of nationalists, the equality agenda, was as much a lost opportunity by the Labour government in the early seventies, as it is now in the so-called Agreement document. The talks process, faced the British once again with a growing demand by the nationalist community for democratic rights.
The British, backed down again, in the face of militant unionism, and retreated behind the consent principle. The consent principle should not be confused with the question of democracy. Consent, British style, is the crude sectarian head counting of ethnic concepts of nationality.
Republicans have never accepted such definitions but have adhered to the principles of democracy as proposed by the United Irishmen, the unity of Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter, under the banner of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. It's a pity Blair didn't feel the hands of Tone and Henry Joy on his shoulder.
In his book, ``The Framework of Home Rule'', the late Erskine Childers wrote that the unionist resistance to Irish nationalism was inspired not by racialism or fear for the Protestant faith, but by ``a deep rooted hatred of democratic principles and practices''.
One has only to study the history of unionism in both Ireland and England, from the Act of Union to the present so-called agreement, to understand the outworking of such hatred.
The Act of Union (1801) is now used by Trimble to reassure unionism that undemocratic government in the north will still prevail despite the removal of the Government of Ireland Act 1920.
The Act of Union is a sordid, undemocratic and corrupt piece of British legislation, which has underpinned the British undemocratic presence in Ireland. In fact the British Liberal Prime Minister Gladstone, describing the beginning of Irish unionism, said the Act; was ``an engine of wholesale corruption, in which we obtained that union against the sense of every class of the community, by wholesale bribery and unblushing intimidation''.
The Act of Union was the response by the British to the 1798 Rebellion. The United Irish Movement, inspired by the French Revolution, sought to bring about the unity of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter, under the democratic principles of Liberty, Equailty and Fraternity. It sent shivers down the spine of British imperialists, busily expanding their colonial regimes throughout the world.
The Rebellion was put down in a particularly vicious manner and Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter suffered the same barbaric cruelty by the British and Irish militia.
The Act of Union consolidated imperialist power in Ireland and effectively retarded all economic developments to the degree that it created conditions for the great starvation forty five years later. More significantly, it created among the unionists a mindset which is found today in the ethos of the Orange Order. The ``no surrender'', ``not an inch'' mentality has not changed because Trimble and Paisley fundamentally disagree on the best way to reconstruct the Orange state, twenty seven years after direct rule.
Their primary objective, and it was reflected in the talks process, is to retain absolute power without recognising the rights of the people to be ruled democratically. They have always believed and have been supported by the British, that because nationalists opposed the undemocratic partition of their country they were not entitled to equal rights.
When Tony Blair jetted in to rescue the unionists at the talks impasse, he stated that he felt the hand of history on his shoulder. Many hands of British Prime Ministers have shaped the history of Ireland. Perhaps Blair had forgotten that partition was established, not by democratic means, but by threat of war.
Perhaps he has forgotten that on the eve of the First World War, the UVF was armed by weapons brought from the German government, whilst Westminster turned a blind eye. Perhaps he has forgotten that the British set up and armed the B-Specials whose membership was drawn from the UVF and who were described by the Daily Mail at the time ``as the very people who have been looting Catholic shops and driving thousands of Catholic women and children from their homes''.
Blair and the unionists talk of the violence of the past thirty years, with the historical amnesia of those who, long before 1969, equipped the armed wings of unionism, the B-specials, the RUC, the UVF, the UDA with the guns which were used to terrorise the Catholic community in the north for fifty years, before nationalists rose to defend themselves.
When the nationalists asked for equality of citizenship during the Civil Rights campaign, the British Labour government responded by conferring extra powers to Stormont, ``to allow it to pass any law it pleases to increase the power of the British army''.
The rights of nationalists, the equality agenda, was as much a lost opportunity by the Labour government in the early seventies, as it is now in the so-called Agreement document. The talks process, faced the British once again with a growing demand by the nationalist community for democratic rights.
The British, backed down again, in the face of militant unionism, and retreated behind the consent principle. The consent principle should not be confused with the question of democracy. Consent, British style, is the crude sectarian head counting of ethnic concepts of nationality.
Republicans have never accepted such definitions but have adhered to the principles of democracy as proposed by the United Irishmen, the unity of Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter, under the banner of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. It's a pity Blair didn't feel the hands of Tone and Henry Joy on his shoulder.