Pro-Union politics has a choice: Work for all or become increasingly irrelevant

Reframing the Debate: 25 challenges for unionism to build a better NI, produced to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, draws from a series of conversations with a cross-section of people about the state of unionist politics and provides a series of challenges unionism needs to meet if it is to play a constructive and relevant role in a future NI.

The starting point is that unionist politics is hindering rather than helping NI become a better place and that this comes from obsessions about protecting the past rather than building a more confident and forward-looking society.

Although the document is intended for discussion, within it is the basis of a strategic plan to address the shortcomings of pro-union politics and meet a widespread frustration that such politics remains unable to meet the needs of NI as a whole.

What emerges from conversations undertaken by the NIDG is a strong sense that pro-union politics, as more noticeably demonstrated by the DUP, has no clear plan for a better future and so no idea of how to create a more stable and secure NI.

Failing to envision what a better society for all looks like means unionism has no reference point to aim for, relying instead on intransigence as a response to the problems that arise.

The Protocol debacle highlights an inability to look beyond immediate concerns and reveals an absence of imagination when it comes to thinking in terms of long-term positive change.

Though presented in short form for ease of access and identification of key areas that require attention it is clear that overall the challenges highlight how pro-union politics is adrift from the real problems that many face.

Most respondents were particularly critical about how the divisions of pro-union politics are obstructing the collective needs of NI and were critical of the fear factor that has been used to sustain this divide.

The respondents also spoke about the absence of women’s voices in unionist politics, particularly from working-class communities, and recommended a more collaborative relationship between political parties and those living and working in deprived areas.

They asked for unionists to think more in terms of the next generation and to define a notion of citizenship and social responsibility that is both inclusive and built upon a strong anti-sectarianism ethos.

Participants talked about the importance of a collaborative approach to deal with concerns that exist across society, particularly in relation to areas such as employment, health and education.

They acknowledged the need to respect different national identity aspirations but also recognised the dangers of rigid national identity expressions that keep the embers of conflict smouldering and the antagonism it draws from alive.

Individually, the challenges produced focus attention on a range of social and political issues that require immediate attention but the overall sense is the need for a new common good where difference and diversity are considered in relation to supporting rather than stifling individual aspiration and potential.

Given the polarised nature of politics it is perhaps not surprising that for many respondents this polarisation has created a politics based less on serving the public interest and more on using social and political problems to sustain political status and influence.

The recognition that pro-union politics must engage more with those who adhere to a different political tradition is seen as essential since such engagement is reflective of a respectful and inclusive society and this came through strongly in the conversations.

Many seek productive collaboration in relationships not just within NI but between North and South and see value re-engaging honestly with the pain of partition that became a foundation for the hatred and hostility that fuelled conflict and poisoned relations within NI and between North and South.

Sharing different understandings of home and the positive or negative experiences that come from being within the UK shows an acceptance for appreciating how the consequences of division have affected all rather than just some.

A desire to rethink how competing notions of Britishness have defined NI can also be glimpsed from the document, along with the inference that this should be used to encourage more engagement with those both within the Republic and the UK about how NI is seen and how its potential for development and progress draws from those relationships.

But, what Reframing The Debate is ultimately about is a demand for better and more responsible governance.

It highlights the desire for a serious discussion about what public interest in NI means and it calls for a much closer and more open dialogue between the competing factions about what inhibits NI from realising its potential.

Though we should remember that much important and positive work already exists within and across communities it is also apparent that this happens not because of pro-union politics but in spite of it.

How much more could NI be if politics drew from the energy and enthusiasm of grassroots activity rather than relied on tired and predictable articulations about what is being lost and what needs defending?

To start the kind of transformative work the document points towards would first require the representatives and proponents of pro-union politics to acknowledge how such politics has been an obstruction to the progress needed.

And that as a starting-point advocates should examine how an inability to build consensus and develop a concept of the common good that promotes inclusivity is a serious problem not just for them, but NI as a whole.

Whether there is a capacity or desire to do so is another issue but it would be foolish to think NI could become a better place if the current state of pro-union politics prevails.

Indeed, it is more likely that without change the development of society will be obstructed, holding back the skills and potential that could make it even better.