In today's Irish Times, Robin Wilson, under the heading "Cosmopolitanism key to peace" refers to the Proclamation of 1916 as "a classic civic republican document" in its affirmation of civil and religious liberty and equal rights and opportunity for all citizens. In practise Wilson contends that republicanism generated the "authoritarianism of a self-appointed revolutionary elite" as well as a commitment to assimilation intolerant of diversity. He mentions this in the context of making a wider point about the elusiveness of reconciliation in Irish politics since the 1790s - a time when the first republicans made an appearance in Irish history. His concern is not so much with the historical record as with the present, and, in particular, with the limitations of elements of the "constitutional engineering" associated with the Belfast Agreement.
Wilson and Rick Wilford of Queen's University have recently authored a report called "The Trouble with Northern Ireland: the Belfast Agreement and Democratic Governance", published by TASC in association with Democratic Dialogue. The report points out that in Northern Ireland’s divided society, unionist politicians tend to focus exclusively on democracy as popular control (‘majority rule’), nationalists on political equality (‘minority rights’). In this regard, the agreement has tended to place these competing constitutional claims side by side, offering unionists the majoritarian ‘consent principle’ and nationalists the egalitarian ‘parity of esteem’. The authors believe that this has allowed the conflict to be pursued—albeit for the most part less violently—if anything with more alacrity than before.
So both sides speak the language of democracy but do not speak to each other. Wilson cites a policy framework published last year by officials in the Northern Ireland administration called A Shared Future. The declared aim of the document is the creation of a "normal" civic society in Northern Ireland, by implication beyond sectarian antagonism. Wilson says that the paper is heavily influenced by the cosmopolitan model of Democracy promoted by political philosopher David Held.
Cosmopolitanism is increasingly seen as offering a route to integration - rather than assimilation or ghettoisation - in diverse societies. It preserves the freedom and equality at the heart of civic republicanism, but recognises that citizens are diverse and must resolve their differences through dialogue, under a state umbrella where ostensibly civic authorities are not in practise imbricated with a particular dominant ethos. It recognises that integration is a two-way street.
Naturally if this philosophy was applied it would do much to help reconciliation. But what will politically drive these ideas? On the "constitutional engineering" side of the equation you can read a summary of the proposals here. The point is that the measures are impartial between unionism and nationalism, the aim being to transcend them both in the name of the common good and so assuage the antagonism between them. With that in mind a key proposal is the recognition that Northern Ireland is a distinct society which should have a sui generis constitutional status, rather than being subject to a neverending argument over its British or Irish character. Getting rid of the communal designation system in the Assembly (Unionist, Nationalist, Other) and d'Hondt also make sense.
Comments