Almery Tessarolo, Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness and Junior First Minister Jennifer McCann

Almery Tessarolo, Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness and Junior First Minister Jennifer McCann, November 2013

More Sunday Independent cartoons from the Dublin Lockout.

Amusing cartoons from the Sunday Independent!!

Come Here To Me!

A recent post looking at some cartoons printed in the Sunday Independent during the Lockout proved popular, and in reality the cartoons we selected were only a small percentage of those that appeared in the publication. Cartoons were a form of propaganda used by both sides in the dispute, and these cartoons always ran on the front page of the newspaper. All the cartoons I have chosen for this post come from 1914, as the dispute dragged into that year before ending in failure for Larkin’s movement. The cartoons are the work of Frank Rigney, cartoonist with the Sunday Independent.

This cartoon from the month of February focused on the issue of pay for DMP men. The role of the DMP in the dispute, and in particular the events of Bloody Sunday in August 1913, ensured that their place in Dublin folk memory would not be as a revered force…

View original post 268 more words

Consociationalism, sectarianism and society.

On my previous post, i made the case of explaining the basics of consociationalism, because the truth of the matter is that, consociationalism itself is not a very well known notion outside the territories that use the system.

As it usually happens, talking about theory doesn’t really show how it will actually work in practise, and this has to do with the fact that there is always external agents that we are generally unable to control/predict their behaviour. The best example of this, is Society.

Society is the object on which elite politics and the institutional fix is overlain. Both approaches (integrationists and consociationalists )decouple their defence from a contextualisation of consociationalism, assuming that the forms and structures of the deeply divided society in Northern Ireland are inherently self-evident, and, importantly, that the societal divisions are somehow predetermined and set. The nature of the societal divisions, and how they are reflected in socio-economic structures and everday realities, is fundamental to the debate about the “root cause” of the conflict, and therefore fundamental to evaluating the outcome of the conflict. Social processes are dynamic. The nature of the deeply divided society in Northern Ireland is in flux, and new social factors, such as new immigrants, are in play. Consequently, we cannot evaluate the Agreement without taking account of this social dynamism.

For the argument that the Belfast Agreement of 1998 is the Sunningdale Agreement of 1973 redux, suggests that the nature of the social divisions are static. Is the divided society in Northern Ireland fixed or in flux?. Also, by analysing social dynamism we may be better positioned to evaluate some of the elite discourse and mindsets about the outcome of the peace process. In particular, there is a swelling elite discourse around the notion that Northern Ireland is a “model” of conflict resolution – but what kind of “model” is it? The elite discourse shares many of the same obsessions as those in academia with technocratic fixes to social disequilibrium and violent conflict, and the objectification of society in Northern Ireland.

As its been perceived many times, The Belfast Agreement is seen as historic precisely because it is presented in a manner to bring to a conclusion not just the thirty years conflict in Northern Ireland, but also the deeper historical ethnonational conflict between British and Irish identities. The political rhetoric of the elites about the Agreements reveals that they perceive the outcome as a kind of “end of history”, where nationalist antagonisms have been transcended. Although the Belfast Agreement itself recognised that changing society was a critical element of stabilisation, its content in this area was rhetorical.

We could interpret the Agreement in a positivist frame by understanding it as a sequenced, two-stage solution to the conflict: achieve elite accommodation first, and society will follow (though the erosion of the parallel living of the two communities was seen as a much longer term project). Whereas the minutiae of the governing institutions, security arrangements, and the relationships between the UK and Ireland were detailed, no such policy specifications were made for societal transformation. This kind of elitist institutionalist approach is intrinsic to the core thinking underlying consociationalism. For Lijphart, one of the first scholars to introduce consociationalism, “accommodation” was a value that was to be understood first and foremost as a “spirit of accommodation” between the elites involved in making the consociational institutions work.

However, we can examine the challenge of social transformation in a segregated society along several key dimensions: housing, education, public service provision, culture, and employment, among others. There is a general recognition that the two key pillars of the parallel communities – housing and education – are durable features of Northern Ireland‟s divided society.

Let us explore one of the key dimensions – housing segregation – as a means of illustrating some of the bigger questions about cause and effect in the conflict. Segregation implies a strong emotive content to social values but it may be driven by many factors, including cultural distance and mutual repulsion, racism, and most obviously in a conflict zone, by fear, anxiety, risk and insecurity. It is seen as a negative social phenomenon that embeds and reinforces mutual ignorance, which in turn both may consolidate the support of hardliners and conflict entrepreneurs, and also be manipulated by such groups.

So how does consociationalism helps to modifying the core of sectarianism? Thats the subject of my next post!

See you later, alligators!!

Consociationalism… the KEY to the new Northern Ireland?

Talking about consociationalism, is for some an abstract concept, and the reason is that only in very particular places we can talk about this very specific form of government and get away with it without any further explanation.

In simple words, Consociationalism is a form or government involving guaranteed group representation, and is often suggested for managing conflict in deeply divided societies. It is often viewed as synonymous with power-sharing, although it is technically only one form of power-sharing.

This was the key for the success of the northern irish peace process this time around, although those familiar to the Sunningdale agreement (and consider the good friday agreement is only “Sunningdale for dummies”) have been familiar with the basics of this term for a long time now.

But why does consociationalism work? why is there so much opposition to it?

This form of government is to some the end of integrationist, and to others, only the beginning. I tend to agree with the latter.

Integrationists, who passionately oppose consociationalism, argue that the structure brought by that form of government doesn’t really leave room for new ways of reorganising society because the core of this system lays in the fact that political parties are divided according to the social/ethnic/religious divisions there are in said society, which clearly will remain so for as long as the system is implemented.

Consociationalists on the other hand, consider that in deep divided societies such as northern ireland, the only way forward to get a peaceful structure of government that will continue and that, ultimately will be able to rule without terrorism ready to act every time a sector doesn’t feel rightfully represented in the making of a bill. And this has been proven through 30 hard years of struggle, where governments that didn’t include the political arm of “liberation groups” only made room for more violence.

The reality of the matter is that, after 9 years since the “final peace” was sign, the north has done nothing but move forward. Granted, maybe slower than other countries, but the fact that the system alone is working proves integrationists wrong.

On my next post, i will specify where the future of northern ireland will be leading us, thanks to consociationalism.

The TRUTH Behind Partition III: The Government of Ireland Act of 1920

Okay, before i start ranting, i would like for you to take 2 seconds to read one of the most important points of the Government of Ireland act of 1920:

CHAPTER 67.

AN ACT to provide for the better Government of Ireland^[1].
[23rd December 1920.]

ESTABLISHMENT OF PARLIAMENT FOR NORTHERN IRELAND.

Establishment of Parliament of Northern Ireland.

1. On and after the appointed day^[2] there shall be established for Northern Ireland a Parliament to be called the Parliament of Northern Ireland consisting of His Majesty, the Senate of Northern Ireland, and the House of Commons of Northern Ireland.
2. For the purposes of this Act^[3], Northern Ireland shall consist of the parliamentary counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Tyrone, and the parliamentary boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry. * * * [1] Applies to N.I. only, 13 Geo. 5. sess. 2. c. 2. s. 1.

 

I think its essencial to establish that the partition of the north was planned since the Government of Ireland act of 1914 (also known as the third home rule bill) if not before.

One of the famous quotes of the time was indeed “Home Rule means Rome Rule”  ….but what to do with the settlers?

There was a long haul from the land wars of the late 1870’s to the first home rule bill to the Governmet of Ireland Act of 1920 . Some might say that partition was inevitable, others think it would have been best to move the settlers back to england/scotland forgetting that those were second or third generation settlers and that would have been impossible at the time.

From a revisionist point of view, i believe, partition was inevitable. The question that remains is… what would have been the better option in this situation?

—–

Refs. to Southern Ireland are included only when required to explain the context.
[2] 3.5.1921, S.R. & O. 1921, No. 533 (Rev. vol. XVI. p. 933.
[3] The extent of N.I., as fixed by this sub. s., was confirmed by the Agreement 3.12.1925, see art. 1. of sch. to 15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 77.

The TRUTH behind Partition (Part II)

Right so here we are…

On my last post, i presented what i believe are the 3 (immediate) points that led to partition.

Yes, it’s true that we would certainly have to go way back to the Ulster Plantation to fully understand the reasons why partition was even conceived on the first place BUT, since I’m trying to make these articles bareable for those who want to understand what happened but maybe are not really that keen on reading 300 pages on one go, i will divide the issue in “contemporary” reasons and “the rest”.

Today i will talk more specifically about the prelude to the Government of Ireland Act of 1920.

To this day, i dont understand WHY people relate the Anglo Irish Treaty with partition, when this issue was decided not only a year before(if not earlier on with the last home rule act), but only spoken about (at the AIT negotiations) in secret meetings between lloyd george and arthur griffith on the early meetings in london without michael collins knowledge on the matter. (I’m pointing this out for those who take the film Michael Collins as “actual history”. It is fair to say that when it comes to explaining the treaty that film is an epic fail)

The first time i understood the depths of what went on between 1917 and 1921 was while i was reading the book  “Michael Collins and the Treaty:  his differences with de Valera” by T. Ryle Dwyer. I highly recommend this book for those who want to get the full story about the relationship between the two and the negotiations of the AIT.

There are very few politicians that are remembered for their greatness in the XX Century, and for those of us who are deep into Geopolitics and strategy, names like Lloyd George, Winston Churchill and Chamberlain are definitly between those that can be called the “Titans” in the world of politics.

Those 3 men were political geniouses and they knew their way around the irish politicians. I truly believe this is one of the reasons why de Valera declined to meet up with Lloyd George several times before negotiations were even conceived and the times they did meet, most issues ended up unresolved. De Valera would not give in under pressure (some would even argue the levels of hostility that led de Valera to decline joining the delegation that went over to london to discuss the AIT (among other strategic reasons, obviously).

The truth behind partition (Part I)

A couple of years ago i did a very thorough research regarding the influence of mass media on the general public, more specifically how the lack of proper education and misleading films affected younger generations who took certain films/tv series as historical facts.

Films like Michael Collins and Braveheart (and the devil’s own) were some of the most regarded ones when it came down to irish history (even though braveheart tells the story of a scottish attempt for independence from the english, but anyway..)

The area i chose to do the research was east Boston, obviously for its historical background (having one of the most “irish” populated areas in the united states AND due to the fact that a couple of years back, a journalist from the BBC had been attacked by a gang of so called american “IRA freedom fighters” who were “defending the right for irish freedom under british rule”

Suffice to say, i was shocked by the lack of knowledge these kids had that were fighting for a cause that was “long ago” settled. Sorta.

When i asked them about unionists, most of them (i will have to upload my statistics) didn’t have a clue who they were; all they did “know” was that the IRA (not the Provos or RIRA) was fighting a righteous cause for freedom and they would do “whatever it takes” to keep the “fight” alive.

Since some of them were actual gangsters i was in NO position to throw a book at them and shout “GET A CLUE!!!!!”. Instead i decided to congratulate them on their “fight for freedom” recommend a few somewhat objective films (no way they were gonna actually read something) and get the hell out of there.

Even though this is a very extreme example, it is true that most people influenced by tv series or films (plus the fact that most historians make the historical facts kinda long and boring to read) end up not really getting the whole story, specially when it comes to partition (in my opinion one of them most important turning points in irish history).

So.. whats the TRUTH behind partition, what really happen?

First thing i’m gonna say is.. FORGET ABOUT THE FILM MICHAEL COLLINS. It’s absolutely misleading about the actual facts. I’m not a Dev lover, but any rational human being knows nothing is SO black or white as that film tries to portray.

To understand partition, we need to go a bit further back the declaration of independence of 1916 and talk about home rule (i know, most people find this kinda boring).

Now, to make it clear enough, i’m gonna mention the 3 most historically important moments that lead to partition:

1- Home Rule Act (attempt n3) of 1914

2- GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACT OF 1920

3- Anglo Irish treaty of 1921 under the section of the boundary commission.

Interview with Bik McFarlene (Part I)

This is an extract from my interview with Brendan McFarlene, he talks about escaping from the Maze, IRA communication tactics and the H blocks.

You can get more videos on my channel youtube.com/almery1916

‘What If’? – New Irishness

There has been a lot of talk about the British identity. As some of you may know there was a poll on several northern irish and british newspapers asking whether Britishness is in decline. Overall, 80% said yes while 20% said no. There does seem to be a concern about Britishness right now amongst politicians in the UK and Ireland. With that being said, I feel the question needs to be asked…

What if there is a decline in Britishness in NI? Will we see a new sense of Irishness amongst those who currently renounce it?

I think it’s an interesting thought. The north of Ireland is a peculiar place when it comes to discussing national identity. Prior to the Easter Rising, Irish people in Ireland felt both British and Irish. As is the case now with the people of Scotland, Wales, and to a lesser extent England, people did not have to choose between the British aspect of their character and the Irish aspect. Indeed, at the outbreak of World War I, Irishmen queued up in their droves to join the fight for the British Army and recruitment matched levels of those in Britain. Of course, the 1916 Rising changed everything. Suddenly a separatist desire had been reawakened in Irish people and thanks to alot of British incompetence, such as the desire to introduce conscription in Ireland, the Irish people suddenly found themselves having to do something that they had not had to do prior to 1916 – choose between their Britishness and Irishness. As we know, most people in Ireland chose Irishness and renounced their Britishness. In the Free State and subsequently Eire, Britishness gradually withered away.

Ireland’s north was different. While some renounced their Britishness, most people retained their sense of Britishness as well as their sense of Irishness, albeit an Irishness quite different to the one perceived of down in the south. However the North had issues of its own to face which would force the people to choose between their Britishness and their Irishness – The Troubles. The Provisional IRA campaign in the North led to many people who regarded themselves as ‘Irish unionists’ renouncing their Irishness totally in favour of Britishness or else ‘Northern Irishness’, which was little more than a retaliatory identity anyway.

In the North today, the two main unionist parties try to outdo one another on which one is more British. The same is true of the nationalist parties in relation to Irishness. None of the main parties seem to acknowledge the groups who refer to themselves as British and Irish or British and ‘Northern Irish’ or who simply refer to themselves as neither. Everything is left in black and white terms. Or green and orange terms to be more precise!

What happens though if Britishness declines in Britain? Where does that leave the people in the North who curently define themselves as British? Would they consider the idea of once again calling themselves Irish?

I know it can be hard to assess the relevance of surveys, however one ‘Northern Ireland Life and Times’ survey conducted at the beginning of the year attempted to determine the political attitudes of people. The results were:

Unionist – 39%
Nationalist – 23%
Neither/Northern Irish – 37%
Other (specify) – 1%
(Don’t know) – 1%

When one assesses the 18-25 age bracket, things get even more interesting:

Unionist – 27%
Nationalist – 27%
Neither/ Northern Irish – 45%
Other ( specify) – 1%
(Don’t know) – 0%

Now people can draw many different conclusions from these types of surveys but what I think is abundantly clear is that there is a significant portion of people in the North who are sick of being herded into one of the two tribes, unionism or nationalism. As I highlighted above, unionist parties are too busy preaching about their Britishness while nationalists are too busy preaching about their Irishness.

The situation facing the two national identities is complex. I personally believe there is a decline in Britishness but that this decline is more of a decline in the perception of what it means to be British.

I think the same is becoming true of the Irish identity. We can see small glimpses of this happening. How people define their Irishness in 2016 will be vastly different to how people would have defined it 50 years previously in 1966. It won’t be based on Catholicism, it won’t be based on anti-Britishness, it won’t be based on conservative values. In 2016 we will see a more secular Ireland, we will see an Ireland that has embraced Europe (hopefully not too much) and we will see a more liberal type of Ireland I reckon.

The point I’m trying to make here is that Irishness is evolving. Soon we will have to reshape Irishness altogether as it was reshaped in 1916. There will be Polish-Irish, Chinese-Irish, Nigerian-Irish etc. If Ireland can successfully integrate these people into Irish society, as a true republic should be able to, then it will greatly enhance the chances of a United Ireland in my opinion.

If Britain does not handle the evolution of its national identity as well as Ireland, and with its strong conservative elements and cautious approach to the outside world it’s quite possible, then the people of NI, particularly the younger generation, might find it in their best interests to be part of in a society with many definitions of what it means to be Irish.

After all, if there can be Polish-Irish, Chinese-Irish and Nigerian-Irish, what’s stopping them from having British-Irish as well?

Irishness in 1916 witnessed a revolution in its identity. Irishness in 2016 will have hopefully witnessed an evolution in its identity.

We’ve spent long enough focusing on the ‘dead generations’. It time to focus on the future generations.

The awkwardness when green rats are abandoning a sinking ship

I don’t know if you are familiar with what happens when a ship is sinking.

It is said that rodents are always the first to dessert a ship when it’s about to sink, its like a 6th sense they have to leave because they know that something bad it’s about to go down so they turn their backs on others about to be in a similar situation and save themselves.

Sometimes I wonder how can John Gormley sleep at night.

This is not just treason, this is double treason.

If you sell out your parties principles to gain power and things don’t go the way you plan, you cant just get out of there, thats not what public servants do. I really don’t think you understand what it is to WORK FOR THE PEOPLE.

People who get into politics actually WORK to make things better when the ship is sinking. I have little respect left for the Fianna Fail administration but at least Brian Cowen has owned up the fact that he got the country into this mess and is trying to work out a solution. Not the best considering he basically put a price on the Irish economic sovereignty, but to be honest I don’t think there is much that can be done to save the country at this stage.

John Gormley and his bike, on another hand, actually think they are riding to the horizon before the end comes.

Well I have news for you, leaving when things are getting hard only proves your lack of leadership and commitment to your country, you are no better than the rats abandoning a sinking ship.

I really hope this is the end of your political career.