James Dingley: ​Republican terrorism was a dismal failure but their politics has been anything but

Meanwhile, republicans have sidelined the Catholic Church and the SDLP as representatives of the nationalist community (Tony Blair told Seamus Mallon the SDLP’s problem was that they didn’t have guns). And whilst inept unionists are invariably on the wrong side of political debates republicans have invariably been on the right side, e.g. Brexit. Consistently, republicans come across as ‘liberal’, progressive, cosmopolitan, youth orientated, with a future vision, irrespective of how much of it they believe, and aided by a media increasingly infected with the same historical myopia as the government. Further, they have a much better record than unionists of achieving things for their communities.

Sinn Fein are organised, have a clear philosophy and positive sounding message of inclusivity and forward looking. Sinn Fein want to restart Stormont (again!) to provide ‘government for everyone’. Michelle O’Neill represented all the people of Northern Ireland at the coronation. John Finucane meets the king on behalf of’ all his constituents’ in North Belfast. Of course such ‘inclusiveness’ for republicans is best illustrated by the experience of southern unionists after 1919, or that of Catholics who opposed them in nationalist communities. But they say the right things for the media, play the right cards and appeal to those who count (ie. the government now waging economic war on unionists) by appearing positive and cooperative.

Republicans benefit enormously from the ‘terminological in-exactitudes’ of Belfast Agreement politics. Just what is the relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA? We need absolute clarity from the government so all can judge the reality of Sinn Fein appearances. Also, what is the reality of republican links to organised crime, punishment beatings and other activities? In 40 years of studying terrorism all the security forces, serious academics and journalists were adamant in their assessment of the relationships. Should not the government now be equally clear? Is republican success due to the ‘shadow of the gunman’?

Belfast Agreement was all ‘smoke and mirrors’, ‘constructive ambiguity’ being the phrase, and people of good will fell for it. However, now we need honesty, since the agreement’s supposed purpose of bringing the utopian ‘middle ground’ together for stable government has palpably failed.

Meanwhile, unionists have been consistently appalling, saying the wrong things and playing the wrong (negative) cards. First lesson of politics, always be positive, play the ‘yes’ card, offer solutions not problems and demands. Second lesson (for unionists): they no longer drive the bus, others do, and they are more concerned about how unionism goes down in Great Britain and abroad, i.e. badly, largely due to unionism’s ineptness. Third lesson, you have to get your message out to the outside world, not least Great Britain and America, change the narrative from the current dire one of backwoods unionists, dull, plodding Prods being dragged into the 20th century, let alone the 21st.

Currently, the DUP fell for Boris and Brexit, then complain about the threat to the Union in clearing up that mess, with leaders who think the world is only 6000 years old! Meanwhile, the average unionist politician often appears more interested in the local planning committee, whereupon they behave more like a deckchair franchise holder on the Titanic. They project no vision for the future, just negativity, saying ‘no’ and offering no solutions or alternative ideas. Unionism consistently appears 6,000 years behind the times and incapable of organising anything beyond the next march. The world has moved on, unionism has not, especially regarding what would attract a cross-community future seeking youth.