Disenfranchised Unionism

There’s been a lot of talk on the news and on Northern Irish blogs about disenfranchised Unionism. Now, most of this is the usual divisive rhetoric we’ve heard before, but I just wanted to discuss some of the points that have been raised.

Jealous Of Appeasement?

A Shankill Road shopkeeper on the news earlier this week remarked that there was “a lot of anger on this road”, and that they it was “their turn to get something”.

What do they want? Unionists don’t know. But they want something! “Nationalists got something, now where’s our something?” Hardly a compelling demand for concessions!

My main point here is what did Unionism expect? For years, the IRA were cited as the cornerstone of the peace process. Unionism conveniently ignored their own outlaws and brigands as they pushed hard for the IRA to stand down in favour of democracy. It was always about the IRA making the first move, decommissioning their weapons, standing down their ’soldiers’.

Now, how was the British government going to persuade Sinn Fein/IRA to stand down and embrace democracy? By bombing them and shooting at them? No, that would be undemocratic. They had to be offered some incentives. And finally, it has worked. There’s an understated buzz at the moment that an act of decommissioning by the IRA is in progress.

The fact is, the IRA had to be given concessions in order to move the peace process forward. And the very same people who cited IRA decommissioning as the key to unlocking the peace process are now annoyed because it was successful?

Sanctioned Thuggery & The Disenfranchised

The Unionist line has been a belter on these riots, hasn’t it? It’s everybody’s fault except theirs.

Firstly, rather than try to contain the violence by appealing for calm, Unionist politicians and the Orange Order warned that there would be violence. Now, there are two possible ways in which this could be interpreted:

1. The Unionist leaders approved of violent protest. They didn’t bank on it ending so badly, but risk severe backlash if they tell people to stop now.
2. They didn’t approve of the protest, but realised a) it was a more united effort than the recent Loyalist feud, and b) they have no control and no-one would heed their warnings anyway.

Either way, none of the rioting makes sense. They tore up their own areas. Launched a furious onslaught on the police, injuring many officers. Stole and burned cars. Destroyed businesses and busses. Stole from pensioners. Allowed their youth to participate in the most significant sectarian violence in a decade.

There’s got to be a better way to get your point across.

Condemnation Of The Parades Commission

This is just ridiculous. Apparently the Parades Commission exists solely to appease nationalists and give them a veto over all parades.

Is it possible that the Unionist/Protestant culture have more marches throughout the year than Catholics/Nationalists? So maybe it’s only natural that some of the more controversial proposed parades will be dropped?

I’m not a fan of any type of parade, so I can’t understand the dogged insistence by marchers that they must walk a certain route. The rules of mutual respect would imply that you don’t march where you’re not wanted. Ok, so you’re worried some of our Orangemen might upset your community? No problem, we’ll just take a small detour…

In Summary

Whoever came up with the “blame everybody else but ourselves” strategy should be kicked. Hard. (Yes, I did just sanction the use of violence! What a hypocrite!)

The prevailing argument is that these working-class Unionist areas have been failed by the politicians that govern them. The appeasement, riot and blame strategy is just another smokescreen concocted by the Unionist leadership to divert attention from the real issues of why those areas are so seriously neglected.

Firstly, why are your children losing out on an education? Maybe because Ian Paisley, Reg Empey and Dawson Bailie have them out rioting all week instead of doing their homework and aspiring to a career that doesn’t involve topping up glass bottles with petrol. Perhaps their prospects will be improved when they have a few convictions against their name for riotous assembly, theft, assault and even murder?

Secondly, why are these areas so devastatingly under-invested? Take a look at the news, people. Who’s going to throw money at an area where scarf-masked morons destroy just about everything that’s not cemented into the ground?

My final thought for this evening is that there is a golden opportunity here for a neutral leader to start working with these communities to improve their lot. It was suggested by a commenter on Slugger O’Toole that Sinn Fein might redress the balance by seeking to pass on the same benefits it attains for the Nationalist community. So if SF were to score an investment package, they might use it to fund an initiative that benefits both communities.

It’s an interesting concept, were both Sinn Fein and the Unionist community prepared to work together. In practice, I’d rather see a more neutral party embrace this challenge, but are David Ford and the Alliance Party courageous enough to take it on?