SpAds Bill shows parties stumble without historical narrative

Over on Slugger, Mick Fealty makes the point that the “SpAds Bill” showed up the SDLP’s tendency to put technicality before broader (moral) principle. It fell to some of the older guard, more than a decade removed from frontline politics, to focus on the principle. Mick explains:

Someone on McDonnell’s front bench was trying to be just a little too clever with a piece legislation that turned out to have a very powerful (and for the SDLP, a very nasty) emotional edge to it.

For all that, the SDLP is far from the only Assembly party which could fall victim of this – the Alliance Party fell victim to it over the most recent same-sex marriage motion, and the Ulster Unionists on countless issues ranging from flags to welfare reform.

For all that, this is not so much about morals and principles as about a clear sense of place and, particularly, a clear historical narrative. What the SpAds bill and others have demonstrated is that the DUP and Sinn Fein are reasonably clear about their historical narrative. Both are outrageously hypocritical, frankly, but clear nonetheless. None of the other three Executive parties can demonstrate such clarity.

For the DUP, Northern Ireland is the Ulster-British State saved from becoming Irish, run well by Unionists for half a century, plagued by a SF/IRA terror campaign, which ended only once the DUP got a “Fair Deal” in 2006-7. For SF, Northern Ireland is a gerrymandered failure, run effectively under Apartheid for half a century, which resulted in an inevitable war, in which its IRA comrades heroically fought against the British Army to secure power-shared, an all-island dimension, and the potential of a United Ireland in an Agreement which ended the War (and saw their heroes let out of prison). These historical narratives have the benefit of being both convenient to large segments of the population, and simple (and actually simplistic) so that they can be widely adopted – to the extent, and herein lies their fundamental problem, that their main rivals (the UUP and SDLP) have effectively also adopted them.

The problem is the Ulster Unionists should not meekly accept the DUP narrative when in fact they secured the basic deal in 1998; and even more obviously, the SDLP should not meekly accept that the IRA campaign was inevitable (nay justified, nay heroic).

On the SpAds Bill, the key issue was the SF narrative, and particularly the issue of prisoner releases. SF likes to pretend what happened in 1998 was tantamount to an amnesty – but it very clearly was not. Prisoners were in fact released on licence, without even immunity far less an amnesty – an amnesty, whereby a crime is viewed differently (to the extent, usually, that it is retrospectively deemed not a crime) is distinct from immunity, whereby someone may admit to crimes but not face prosecution. SF likes to talk in terms of an amnesty as it fits its world view that what happened between 1969-94 was a “war” – but again, it very clearly was not. All these terms are clearly defined, and SF is on the wrong side of the definition. The problem is, by endorsing campaigns such as that for the release of Gerry McGeough (whose licence was revoked entirely in line with the 1998 Agreement) right up to Leadership level, the SDLP has bought into the SF historical narrative. The whole point of the SDLP from the outset was to suggest and promote an entirely peaceful means of attaining change and that violence was neither inevitable nor necessary; so, if it buys into the SF narrative (that essentially an IRA campaign was inevitable and justified and part of a war which resulted in an amnesty) it totally removes its own raison-d’etre.

It took Seamus Mallon and Brid Rodgers to remind their party of what their raison-d’etre is. It, alongside Alliance in this case, has to stand up full squarely against SF’s re-writing of history and against SF’s historical narrative. The SDLP (and Alliance, in this case) have to demonstrate the utter fallacy of SF’s assumption that the IRA campaign was inevitable and justifiable, not only because it wasn’t, but also because if they fail to demonstrate this fallacy then in fact their own commitment to peace and non-violence becomes the “historical mistake”!

This is more serious, however, than the survival of two old political parties. SF’s historical narrative – which promotes the interests of prisoners over innocent victims, which promotes the notion of amnesty over reconciliation, which promotes a notion that violence was necessary to progress when in fact peace was necessary to progress – is seriously, seriously flawed to the extent that if no one stands up and demonstrates how flawed it is, it is bound to be repeated by “dissidents” at the cost of many more lives.

The SDLP and indeed the Alliance Party and others have a job to do. They have demonstrated on occasions that they can do it – not least the Alliance Party in City Hall in December. If they want or need a bit of extra courage, they should ask to borrow some from Ann Travers.


4 thoughts on “SpAds Bill shows parties stumble without historical narrative

  1. factual says:

    At the risk of challenging Alliance, lately I have begun to think the following:

    Alliance narrative = (SF narrative + DUP narrative)/2

    This in fact does not work very well because the “incommensurability” of the two narratives being averaged. Each narrative on its own is strong, but a linear combination of the two (being agnostic on the union for example) does not work well.

  2. The SDLP’s issues with technicality are not unique or amoral, for one during the debate over decommissioning I remember UUP member Ken Maginnis arguing with Sinn Féin over the technical issue of ‘complete’ with regard to decommissioning, which is why there was a spat over “contrition” between Allister and Bradley. Another issue was retrospection, in this regard Jim Allister brought ne evidence to his case outside the commitee showing a reversal of opinion on this matter by the Attourney General. The technicalities over retrospection and the previous one brought up by the SDLP with regards to appeals and in my opinion safeguards against the law collapsing. Technicalities are why Paratropper Lee Clegg was released, and why his ‘innocence’ will always be in question.

    I suppose Alliance were saying that the SDLP’s campaigns against internment ignored victims and were based on technicalities. The fact that people from large nationalist areas were rounded up and convicted on mere suspicion and the moral authority of getting a pound of flesh for victims rather than the real convicts served to achieve nothing but give propaganda victories for the people doing it.

    I’m sure in the future people might think the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six were released on the basis of a legal technicality at the expense of victims. Technicalities are sometimes the barrier between Revenge and Justice.

    • I think people would say – and would be entitled to say – that the miscarriage of justice was not only that the wrong people were found guilty, but that the right people were never found guilty.

      We had films about those who were released from prison; but never about families of victims who never saw justice done.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: