Davy Adams ( late of this parish and of the late UDP) is a man I like. I interviewed him a couple of months ago and he was accommodating in every way. He also has some things worth saying, as well as a few others he should say but doesn't, and the odd thing that's rubbish. All three qualities you can see in an article in this morning's Irish Times.
The central point he's making is that the way leaders of opposing groups behave towards each other is very important. Why? "Because the critical mass of communities and core constituencies - who must be brought along - take their mood directly from the top". The examples he uses are Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley, and Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson. He has a point. We learn by example. Where I would draw back is when faced with Davy's phrasing: "...take their mood directly from the top". Mmm. In my experience, people are capable of thinking for themselves more than we give them credit for, providing they aren't subjected to a steady diet of misdirecting media. There's no doubt that many republicans are encouraged to work towards civility and even warmth with their political opponents, but I'd like to think they've worked it out to a great extent by themselves and aren't just "taking their mood directly from the top". Whether the example of Paisley and Robinson will encourage unionists to approach their republican neighbours with greater amiability, I'm not so sure.
Which brings me to a second point of disagreement with Davy Adams's article. He's extending his leadership-example thesis to cover the early days of building towards the Good Friday Agreement. "It should be remembered that the peace process began as a result of the personal chemistry between Albert Reynold and John Major, and was brought to (theoretic) fruition by the equally friendly triumvirate of Bertie Ahern, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton". I don't know if I'd disagree with much of that, even though I don't know what 'theoretic' means. The people mentioned did play their part in moving things towards Good Friday, 1998. What I disagree with is what Davy doesn't say here. Spot the missing leaders? You got it - John Hume and Gerry Adams. There is absolutely no doubt that the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement grew out of the talks (much condemned in the southern media especially) between Hume and Adams in the late 1980s and early 90s. What's more both men, and particularly Adams, always displayed a positive, open attitude to their political opponents.
And that brings me to the third and maybe most crucial disagreement I'd have with Davy's article. He talks about the "post-settlement period when the main local actors were barely speaking to one another" and there was an atmosphere of "outright hostility". The clear implication is the old, tired tit-for-tat lie: one side was as bad as the other. The fact is that the republican leadership in the post-settlement period - and in the period preceding the Agreement - went out of their way to be civil and courteous in their dealings with the DUP, but again and again were rebuffed. When Paisley and McGuinness become First and Deputy First Minister respectively, which of the two was clearly more respectful, agreeable and working for harmony? I'll give you a clue: it wasn't the one that's resting in the Ulster Hospital at the moment. This wearisome Alliance Party stance of holding all sides as equally remiss may sound balanced and BBC-ish; in reality it's balderdash.
There is a simple positive and negative emotional reaction to this piece Jude.The positive is that it is spot on, the negative being that there are still so many that refuse to acknowledge it as the truth, due to an inacceptence through sheer belligerence in facing the facts because of those involved.
ReplyDelete