I have just waded my way through a newly published history of Protestantism (who says that we atheists can't have as much fun as the rest of you?)
and was particularly struck by this paragraph: "From the small group that issued a 'protestatio' at the Diet of Speyer in 1529, supporting proposals by Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli, a many-headed movement grew. Its main characteristics, an empha
sis…and a strong belief…that they alone had arrived at the correct reading of the New Testament, are still common in Protestantism today. These are low barriers to entry, which may help to explain the creative destruction that has characterised Protestant sects. Old ones die out and new ones are born, each convinced that the recent past has been an aberration and that what is needed is a return to older, purer Christianity."
RESEARCHRemind you of anything close to home? Checking through an assortment of reference books, I have managed to track down almost one-hundred groups, parties and ad hoc organisations which have tied a unionist/loyalist/Protestant label to their political baggage since 1921. It is this tendency to think for ourselves, while accusing our former colleagues of weakness and treachery, which made the "United we stand, divided we fall" mantra a touchstone of our political culture.
PURISTJim Allister is merely the latest in a long, indeed a very long line of purists, who believes that he, albeit encouraged by a motley crew of professional head-in-the-sanders, is now the Keeper of the True Unionist Faith. It doesn't actually matter that he doesn't have an ideological leg to stand upon, nor that he hasn't presented us with a legible or credible alternative; all that matters is that he gets his five minutes in the spotlight and his name in the footnotes.
That said, I do have a little sympathy for him. He and I were on the same BBC panel on the day that the Assembly election results were coming through. In response to a question from Noel Thomson, I ventured the opinion that I expected the DUP and Sinn Fein to conclude a power-sharing deal within a matter of weeks. Jim tore into me, telling me not to judge the DUP by the spineless standards of the UUP. If there actually was a deal, he said, it would be a very long way down the line and only after Sinn Fein had jumped through a series of hoops.
ANGSTSo I can understand his angst when his party packed the hoops into a box a few weeks later and signed up to a turquoise-shaded pact which elevated Ian and Martin into the role of co-equal rulers of all they surveyed. It was hard not to feel sorry for Jim. No-one of significance joined him in resigning from the party, leaving him to try and build his New Jerusalem with the help of some elderly refusniks and a handful of vitriolic press releases.
Mind you, the letters pages of this newspaper have played host to a wonderfully ding-dong spat between Jim's coterie and his former chums in DUP HQ. And the oddest aspect of the whole kafuffle is that the DUP is now defending itself against the "sell-out" allegations by trotting out precisely the same lines as David Trimble! If they hadn't done the deal, they say, Bertie Ahern would be president of an all-Ireland state, Gerry Adams' face would be on postage stamps and Dana would be our new patron saint.
NO SURPRISEThis tendency to divide and stumble is hardly surprising when you remember that Unionism was originally a catch-all for everyone who believed in maintaining the constitutional link between the two countries. The UUP which emerged in 1905 embraced all classes, professions, backgrounds and tendencies. Apart from wanting the Union and fearing a United Ireland the unionist electorate had little in common. For all its claims to be different, the DUP mirrors the UUP to the extent that it also attracts its votes (including former UUP ones) from across the spectrum.
Both main unionist parties will face difficulties in the future when it comes to holding their voting base together. Fear of the IRA has gone. Fear of a United Ireland has gone. Fear of being booted out of the United Kingdom has gone. Fear of the "other side" has gone. And with those fears gone, unionists will be less inclined to vote for parties which continue to promote or play upon those fears for electoral advantage.
CHOICESo unionist voters are going to find other yardsticks by which to measure the abilities and relevance of the UUP and DUP. They are going to look at the Assembly, at the Programme for Government and at the difference, if any, locally generated legislation has on them and their families. Six months ago the DUP was telling us about the financial package which would accompany devolution. Today, Finance Minister, Peter Robinson, is forced to admit that belts will have to be tightened. Irrespective of whether the DUP or UUP was the lead voice of unionism at the moment, the fact remains they would be faced with the enormously difficult task of proving that devolution really does make a difference. So far, there is very little tangible evidence that it has.
AGENDAI believe that it is essential that both unionist parties broaden their electoral appeal and expand their political agenda. The issues that will matter in the future will be socio-economic, health, education, housing, employment, small business, local agriculture, savings, the environment et al. To attract votes---and I don't just mean from the Protestant/unionist community---the unionist parties have to champion relevant, practical, effective and costed policies. They have to prove that unionism means something more than the flag, the sash and the drumming up of old fears. Putting it bluntly, they have to prove that the devolution they have demanded for decades is actually worth having.
And, as I argued a couple of weeks ago, none of this can be achieved by a merging of the parties or by both of them being content to fish from each others' pool of voters. An opportunity has been presented to both the UUP and DUP to make themselves relevant to an entirely new generation of voters. It won't be easy and will require massive internal changes for both of them; but if they, unionism and the Union itself are to survive, then they must rise to the moment and accept the challenge.
The full article contains 1106 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
