Social Movements in Violently Divided Societies by John Nagle

Author:John Nagle [Nagle, John]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Social Science, General, Sociology
ISBN: 9781317508007
Google: ttijCwAAQBAJ
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2016-02-26T02:52:47+00:00

From triumphalism to victimhood

The Belfast Agreement (1998) ushered in a change of identity for unionism. It is certainly incorrect to provide a monochrome representation of unionists as possessing a ‘triumphalist’ mentality fuelled by the group’s dominance over the region’s political and economic institutions (see Donnan and Simpson, 2007: 8). Certainly, unionism historically presented an image of a confident democratic majority secure in their political identity (Finlay, 2001; Mitchell, 2003). With the advent of the 1998 Agreement, a discernible countertrend was identified, which pointed to a new unionist encapsulation. Unionists were now more likely to be portrayed and to portray their own experience, as Finlay (2001: 3) notes, as that of ‘defeat and associated emotions…More than one author has claimed to detect self-pity and a predilection for victimhood’.

Although a small majority of unionists supported the 1998 Agreement, unionist confidence in it quickly eroded. Informed by a liberal pluralist and multicultural framework, the Belfast Agreement redressed a number of imbalances and grievances identified by Irish nationalists (Mitchell, 2003: 615). Labelled the ‘equality agenda’ by nationalists, a rather contrary descriptor was used by many unionist politicians. For them, the Agreement ushered in a series of policies that were clearly inequitable, such as the reform of the police service – a force which was historically almost wholly unionist underwent rebranding, replete with new symbolic insignia and recruitment quotas (Bryan and McIntosh, 2005). Unionist politicians framed these quotas, designed to redress the imbalance of Catholics in the force, as acts of blatant discrimination against unionists (Hayes et al, 2005). Unionists also pointed to further concessions given to militant Irish nationalist groups to embrace the path to peaceful politics, such as the release of prisoners convicted of paramilitary offences,1 amnesties for so-called ‘on-the-run’ paramilitaries and the downscaling of the British military presence across Northern Ireland. Moreover, for unionists, Irish nationalist leaders seen as responsible for sectarian atrocities during the war remained untouched and were even rewarded with executive seats in the new power sharing government.

For unionist victims of Irish nationalist violence, the lack of appropriate justice that they received from the Agreement compounded their sense of disenfranchisement from the peace process. Although a small minority of unionists originally supported the Agreement, this was quickly turned into a substantial minority (see Mac Ginty and du Toit, 2007: 23–27). This dissatisfaction with the Agreement found voice in the hardline political parties of unionism. Whereas the leading unionist party at the signing of the Agreement was the relatively moderate Ulster Unionist Party (UUP), they were quickly denounced as ‘traitors’ by their intrabloc unionist rivals, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). In so doing, the DUP performed a classic case of ‘ethnic outbidding’, in which ethnic parties utilize ‘extremist and emotive ethnic appeals that suggest that their group’s vital interests are in danger of being “sold out”’ (Mitchell et al, 2009: 400). Unionists opposed to the political dispensation which emerged as part of the postconflict transitional phase in the late 1990s constructed alliances and networks which constituted the unionist victims’ movement.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.