Socio-evolutionary identity plays a fundamental role in the building of the character of any nation, with Northern Ireland being no different. The constellation of discursive issues that demarcate Irelands conflicted history, are complex and multifarious. The conflict is steeped in the historical context of religious conviction, monarchical dispossession of territory and rights, a distrust of government and the impact of socio-economics on its people.
Scholars, politicians and men of the cloth, from all sides of the political floor and religious faiths have assessed and reviewed the Irish ‘troubles’ and all remain convinced that they have the answer, the defining commitment or the epiphany that will or would have restored the island to peace and unity. However like all protracted conflicts the original catalyst is often lost or manifests into a raft of idiosyncratic reasons to fight.
When we dissect the conflict down to base elements, there remains two strategic themes, the first being the alignment of faith between the Protestant minority and the Catholic majority and the second base element is the alignment of allegiance of country. The Catholic Nationalist desire for a unified Irish nation and the Unionist commitment to a fractured island with a northern annex, controlled by the United Kingdom is at the essence of the conflict. Whilst this might seem a myopic view of the struggle, it is difficult to reframe the conflict beyond its ethno-nationalist agenda and “Irishness, Catholicism and Nationalism remain important ethno-national and ethno-religious markers, even amid diminished religious and territorial fervor” (Evans, Tonge.2013.Pg.358).
National identity often helps frame the cause of conflict and Irelands long proud history provides some insight into at least one element of the historical context of the conflict. Since the twelfth century the historical milieu was bipolar, is so far as it was essentially an Irish-English problem and focused on Ireland's attempt to secure independence from Britain. However from the 1920’s the conflict morphed into an internal conflict, between the Republic of Ireland and its loyalists committed to reunification and Northern Irish content to reside under a British umbrella. Whilst conflict has continually been a part of Irish history, the contemporary conflict in Northern Ireland started to manifest post the 1950’s recession, when religious affiliation and political ascendancy became intertwined.
In order for protagonists on both sides to achieve the “Segway” from religious disagreement to political agenda, a reframing of Irish history was required. This method of reframing has proven to be a discursive process and created a mythology that has allowed agendas to be interwoven into deep-seated historical rivalries and allowed the reinvigoration of age-old tensions in modern formats.
It is clear that deep-seated historical disunity was well established, however a short economic revival in the 1960’s provided much needed stimulus to both the Irish Republican and English supported Northern Ireland economies (Perry.2010.Pg.330). John Darby describes this new found economic prosperity in his background essay on “Conflict in Northern Ireland” as a catalyst to a development of self-awareness, which inturn led to an attitude of inequity by the catholic majority towards the more affluent
minority protestant population.
This would transform the conflict into the multifaceted socio-religious, socio- political and socio-economic conflict, which formed a new and more volatile tension between both religious and political groups. The key actors used this disharmony to further, political religious and ideological agendas, each having a belief that they alone held the moral and political high ground and that their stated and desired purpose was for the greater benefit of Ireland.
Whilst the broader context of the conflict appears to have begun from a socio-economic standpoint we must understand the actors and the roles that they have each played in the formation of the agenda for the conflict. Firstly we must look at Britain’s role in the creation of an environment of hostility towards itself, through not only its historical treatment of the Irish, but furthermore the territorial annexation of a portion of the Irish land mass.
Whilst the majority of the British colonial empire has ceded from British rule, Britain maintains a position that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and will remain so. This view is universally agreed upon by both sides of the British parliament and supported by the unionist movement in Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is linked through Unionist ideology which forms the main tenant of political leadership is Northern Ireland and has been the main electoral leadership in the country since the 1920’s. Their philosophy subscribes to the ideal of integration of Northern Ireland with Britain (although there remains a traditional Irish distrust of the British) and the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) have been at the forefront of the political debate. The UUP enjoys strong protestant support due to its unwillingness to share executive power with non- Unionist political parties and it has succeeded in fanning the flames of extremist fear and paranoia within the minority religious populace of Northern Ireland for decades.
Although Popular there was a splinter in the unionist movement with the formation of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), this party came to the fore with a more traditional hard line stance against nationalist politics and the Catholic Church. The DUP hoped to recapture the more hard line demographic, due to the change to a more pragmatic position by the UUP in later years.
The Nationalists form the apposing and protagonist position with in the state and are placed in stark contrast to the Unionist movement. With an agenda of unification established through the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), which contests the nationalist vote with Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin generally being accepted as the diplomatic arm of the Irish Republican Army IRA or conversely the IRA as the Para-military arm of Sinn Féin.
This is the point at which political aspiration diverges to become physical terrorism, with the SDLP conceding that unification cannot be achieved without the majority of Northern Ireland’s support, however Sinn Féin through the IRA believed that a protracted campaign of terror designed to coerce the unionists and the minority Protestant population and by proxy the British government to concede to a reunification of Ireland through force. (Malamud. 2012. Pg.)
Whilst IRA activity is well documented, it plays no part in the actual source of the conflict and like the British Army deployed to Northern Ireland is simply an extension of the means of failed political discourse. The IRA perhaps personified the struggle of the nationalist movement and provided the public face of the perceived struggle to re- unify Ireland.
The conflict is remains clearly centred on the dissention of the people with regard to political and religious agendas within Northern Ireland, however we must also include the influence and impact of the Republic of Ireland and its role in the prolonged conflict.
Whilst British law lay’s claim to Northern Ireland, so does the Republic of Ireland which under the “Articles 2 and 3 of their constitution” also lay claim to Northern Ireland as part of the 32 counties of Ireland. The broader clandestine support of the Nationalist by Republican unification supporters cannot be understated an most certainly aided in the violence within its neighbour.
In addition to this established claim on territorial right the Republics constitution further provides inference that there is an inherent right to influence Northern Irish affairs (Darby.1995.Ch.2).
It is clear that outside influence from both Britain and the Republic of Ireland have contributed significantly to the protracted nature of the conflict, whether through subversive support of the Nationalist agenda or direct military intervention by Britain. Both nations have played a key role in the protean nature of the conflict and loyalties from within Northern Ireland to third party nations have proven to be the fuel that has fired the Northern conflict for decades. Whilst the violence cannot be claimed to have been isolated just to Ireland and the conflict did spill into the broader United Kingdom through attacks by the IRA, it would be justifiable to conclude that the real cost of the conflict was not to Britain, nor to the Republic of Ireland but to those torn by loyalty within Northern Ireland itself.
Conflict within Ireland is never be far from the surface, although in a period of relative peace multi generational loyalties are not easily disconnected and rivalries of both religious and political affiliation must still abound. Whilst segregation and the likely weariness of the conflict has led to a pragmatic power sharing solution to governing the state, it remains to be seen if the powder keg of distrust and years of hatred can be contained long enough for a generation to enjoy and understand the benefit of peace.
In the end it was the equifinality of the Irish conflict the ultimately led to its solution, whereby both religious and political and historical disagreement was meshed and melded into an outcome that was at least on the surface workable for the majority.
Bibliography
Malamud, Joshua. "The Irish Republican Army’s Role in Shaping Ireland’s Political Voice: Violence, Unity, and Division from 1916-1998." (2012).
Evans, J. and Tonge, J. (2013), Catholic, Irish and Nationalist: evaluating the importance of ethno-national and ethno-religious variables in determining nationalist political allegiance in Northern Ireland. Nations and Nationalism, 19: 357–375.
Perry, R., (2010). Revising Irish history: The Northern Ireland conflict and the war of ideas. Journal of European Studies, 40(4), pp.329–354.
Darby, John. (1995). 'Conflict in Northern Ireland: A Background Essay', in, Dunn, Seamus. (ed) (1995) Facets of the Conflict in Northern Ireland. Chapter 2.
