.jpg)
A century ago a new line appeared on the map of Ireland. It carved its way for 300 miles across the landscape from Derry in the North West to Dundalk in the East. Partition separated farmers from their land, businesses from their customers, and children from their schools. Streams and rivers, bóithre, country roads, fields became the boundary for this new border. The front door of a home was suddenly in a different state. Towns were cut off from their natural economic and social hinterlands. Communities were divided and separated. Partition was imposed at gunpoint by the British Government.
The northern state was born in a
maelstrom of sectarian violence as thousands of Catholic workers in Belfast
were forcibly and violently expelled from their jobs. A brutal pogrom against
Catholics saw hundreds killed, and thousands evicted from their homes. Loyalist
paramilitaries became the new police force – the Royal Ulster Constabulary and
Ulster Special Constabulary with a new law – the Special Powers Act – given to
them as legal cover for the reign of terror which followed.
In the decades after 1921 the
Unionist establishment solidified its control through the imposition of an
apartheid regime in which nationalists and republicans were reduced to the
status of non citizen. This was done through the systematic gerrymandering of
electoral boundaries, the denial of the vote to hundreds of thousands of
Catholics in local government elections, and the extensive use of structured
sectarian discrimination in housing and employment.
Life was hard
for working people including working class Protestants. Poverty was endemic.
But for Catholics it was even worse. Jobs and houses were few and wages a
pittance. After the brutality of what the Irish News at the time described as a
‘carnival of terrorism,’ and the
abandonment of nationalists by the political establishment and government in
the South, there was a general sense of hopelessness among the besieged
nationalists. Unable to find employment or a home many emigrated to England,
Canada, Australia and the USA.
For decades
the convention within the British Parliament was that Westminster did not
interfere in the affairs of the North. The British media followed this
practice. But the emerging public agitation in the 1960s by groups like the
Campaign for Social Justice, the Wolfe Tone Societies, the Derry Housing Action
Committee and then the Civil Rights Association saw the beginning of a
fight-back. Some elements of the British media began to give attention to the
corrupt practices and policies of the Unionist regime.
In July 1966,
as the English Queen visited Belfast, the Sunday Times wrote a rare article
about the north. Under the headline ‘John Bull’s political slum’ the
article described the northern state as ‘a part of Britain where the
crude apparatus of political and religious oppression, ballot rigging, job and
housing discrimination and an omnipresent threat of violence co-exists with
intense loyalty to the Crown.’
But there was also dissent. A young nationalist known ever after as
‘Throw The Brick’ flung a breezeblock at her car.
The following
year The Times published the results of an investigation carried out by its
News Team headlined ‘Ulster’s Second-Class Citizens’ which
reported on the ‘grave allegations of religious discrimination in the
planning’ of Craigavon. The former head of the design team Professor
Geoffrey Copcutt revealed that he was told ‘by a source close to the
Stormont Cabinet’ that the unionist government ‘would not
countenance any scheme that would upset the voting balance between Protestants
and Roman Catholics …’ Copcutt went on to describe the situation of
Catholics as ‘very similar to that of the Negro in the United States.’
The
campaigning journalist Mary Holland in the Observer the day after the RUC’s
infamous and widely televised attack on the 5 October 1968 civil rights march
in Derry – under the title ‘John Bull’s White Ghettoes’ wrote; ‘Houses
in Northern Ireland are a crucial political weapon and people don’t get houses
if they don’t vote the right way.’
A year later the violent response of
the Unionist regime to the just demands of the civil rights movement; the
Battle of the Bogside; the August 1969 pogroms by loyalists against Catholic
districts in Belfast; the violence of the RUC and B Specials; the refusal of
successive British governments to confront the despotic actions of the Stormont
government; and its decision to militarily bolster that government all led to a
conflagration that lasted three decades.
Today the adverse political, economic
and societal consequences of partition and of those policies are still with us.
They exist in the disproportionate number of Catholics on the housing waiting
lists; unionist resistance to the construction of new housing in nationalist
areas; the denial of Irish language rights; the continued opposition by
political unionism of basic human rights for all citizens; a biased approach to
the issue of victims; and resistance to the full implementation of all aspects
of the Good Friday Agreement.
This is partition. A disastrous
British government policy which has caused huge hurt. And yet British Prime
Minister Boris Johnson believes it merits a celebration. Two weeks ago he
announced his intention to establish a Centenary Forum and a Centenary
Historical Advisory Plan as part of his government’s plans to mark 100 years of
the Northern state.
Already we can see the political
battle lines being drawn. On one side are those who see this as an opportunity
to laud the creation of the northern state and to promote the union with
Britain. On the other are those who point to the systemic institutional
violence and discrimination of the northern state against nationalists and who
believe that the future lies in a united Ireland. Different narratives that
illicit starkly opposing opinions with the potential of building the walls of
division stronger and higher.
If this is to be avoided, or at best
minimised, our focus must be on ensuring the widest possible debate in the most
positive atmosphere. We need the widest possible engagement in which everyone
and anyone with an opinion feels free to express that knowing it will be heard
with respect. The complexity of our history and of the relationships between
the people of our island and between this island and our nearest neighbour must
be examined, honestly and openly. Everyone, whether nationalist or unionist,
loyalist or republican, or none of these, has to have the space in which to
discuss their view of the events of 100 years ago, and their consequences.
But crucially it must not all be
about the past. That would be a huge mistake. The conversation about partition
must also be about the future. About the next 5 years – 10 years – 100 years.
This is an opportunity for unionists
to explain to nationalists and republicans why they believe maintaining the
union with Britain is in all our best interests. What’s in it for nationalists
and republicans and not just for unionists? Where will stand parity of esteem
and equality of treatment? And will they respect the democratic wish of people
in a referendum if that is for a United Ireland?
And for nationalists and republicans
it is an opportunity not just to rehearse again the arguments around the
failure of partition but to set out the republican vision for a new Ireland – a
shared Ireland – a united Ireland and what advantages it holds for unionists
and for the people of this island and their future?
The Irish government has a crucial
role to place in this process. In its Programme for Government published in
June it committed to establishing a ‘Shared Island Unit’ within the Taoiseach’s
department. It also said it expected it to be up and running within a month.
Almost four months later there is no information on its remit and resourcing;
the role of the Taoiseach, or its outreach into the North. This is
unacceptable. The centenary of partition is an opportunity for discussion and
examination and re-evaluation. Instead of turning the centenary of partition into
a fleg fest with bonfires adorned with the emblems of the other side we have
the opportunity to open up a real debate on the future – a normal conversation
about matters of concern for us all.
The Irish government should be taking
a lead on this.
Finally, we must not lose sight of
the significant political and societal and demographic changes that are taking
place. Already we can see that these are driving change. Forcing some to engage
in new thinking, contemplating different options, looking for new answers. The
centenary of partition is an opportunity to break with the past. That will
prove enormously challenging but through dialogue and planning I believe we can
change the future. For me it has always been straight forward. Why would anyone
want to be ruled by anyone from another country? We are well able to govern
ourselves. No one else should decide our future. That should be our decision.
Comments