I admire David Cameron. I re-joined the Conservative Party when David became leader. On every occasion I have met him he has shown a wonderful insight into Northern Ireland’s political problem – namely a political system that is defined on the basis of religion and constitutional division. And he is correct that the constitutional business is done. This article in the News Letter articulates his view well.
Unfortunately, however, we still have political parties that are defined on the basis of religion. Their social policy positions are defined by a religious world-view. The DUP is a fundamentalist Christian Party. So much so that Gregory Campbell was unable to answer a silly end-of-show question on Let’s Talk posed by a WI Member i.e. did he prefer money or sex? He declined to answer. Such is the DUP’s hang-ups about sex, religion, and changing ethics, that the answers to silly, and not so silly, questions are always deferred.
We need to replace the politics of constitution, nationalism and religion with the centre left/right system of the United Kingdom.
It is for this reason that David Cameron is right that Conservatives must contest every seat in Northern Ireland. Because the issue is not about Unionism. It’s not even essential that a maximum number of “Unionists” are returned. Rather, David is right because contesting every seat brings a little bit of real, national politics to every contest. By having Conservative candidates contest each seat we are saying to the electorate that the Conservative Party wants to break, forever, the sectarian basis of our political system and replace it with an essentially secular form of UK politics.
The key question to ask, of course, is whether the candidates will adequately reflect this ambition. The joint committee has an important part to play in ensuring that sectarian candidates are not selected.
Moreover the UUP can show that it understands the political imperative and does not put forward candidates from the Orange wing of its Party.
I think the point is that the Ulster Unionist Party has broken its links with the Orange Order and what I’m trying to do with the UUP is not look backwards, but look forwards and say we can build a new force in Northern Ireland…which can attract people irrespective of which church they go to or how they worship God or which part of the community they come from. David Cameron
Jeff – I am certainly no advocate of Orangeism, as you know. But to replace one form of discrimination with another would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Members of the Orange Order can no more be disallowed from standing than members of the GAA or people who worship in a Church of Ireland, for instance. Certainly, people should not be advantaged by membership of the Order and if there is a disproportion of Orange candidates it should be addressed.
I totally understand where you’re coming from with a lot of this anti-Orange and anti-Christian stuff, but the big lesson that I’ve tried to learn in recent years is that you can’t let closeness to a culture obscure your view of it. Coming from Northern Ireland, if you detest sectarianism, you’re going to look at the Orange Order, religion and a host of other things through that prism. That’s only natural. But the point about being inclusive is that you accept the legitimate expression of a wide range of cultures and points of view and you can separate admittedly bad things which often accompany them from the principle that they should be free to be expressed nonetheless.
Chekov, great to hear from you.
I’m not being anti-Christian. I’m a realist. I have no religion myself but I could not and would not discriminate against people of faith – just as I’d hope they would not discriminate against me because I have no religious belief. Similarly, I wouldn’t suggest that the joint committee discriminate on the basis of faith (or lack of faith). What I would expect is that they attempt to choose candidates that would appeal to all voters, irrespective of their religion.
My motivation, in terms of having the British political parties organise here, and seek a mandate, is that we will transplant a fundamentally sectarian society with one that isn’t. In my view the Conservative Party needs to put forward candidates who represent something new – not just in terms of their involvement in a national political party, but also because they represent virtues that are important to the creation of a better society.
Yesterday a 49 year old father of four was beaten to death by a crowd of “loyalist” thugs in Coleraine. Our society is not just tainted with sectarianism, it is sick as a result of sectarianism. It creates young people that believe there is merit in beating a man to a pulp because he is a Catholic. If we put forward politicians for elected office who also believe that there is merit in being involved in an institution that is defined on the basis of sectarianism, we damage and sully ourselves as spokespeople for our society. Elected representatives cannot be seen to be of one “community” or another. All our politicians need to represent all of their constituents and do everything to protect all of their constituents. I am not of the opinion that members of the Orange Order are capable of doing that. Therefore, they should not be Conservative Party candidates.
As for freedom of expression, I agree in freedom of speech. However, I do not believe that all who express certains views – especially views I and other Conservatives find repellent – should have equal rights or merit to put themselves forward as Conservative Party candidates.
The only culture I respect is freedom of thought and the ability for people to treat each other with mutual respect and decency. To use culture as an excuse for sectarianism is a nonsense. In Northern Ireland “culture” is often an excuse for tribalism at its very worst.
Thanks for a thorough reply Jeff – just a few points I’d like to add:
My motivation, in terms of having the British political parties organise here, and seek a mandate, is that we will transplant a fundamentally sectarian society with one that isn’t. In my view the Conservative Party needs to put forward candidates who represent something new – not just in terms of their involvement in a national political party, but also because they represent virtues that are important to the creation of a better society.
I can’t fault the instinct – and again, I have a great deal of sympathy for your point of view on this, because I would have shared it at one stage and I still share it to a degree. I would suggest, though, that we have to deal with society as it is, rather than how we’d like it to be. Which isn’t to suggest that we should accept the bad things that go along with it. But it is all very well to recognise that it would be better if the Orange Order didn’t have certain associations, or if the GAA didn’t tether itself to a certain political ideology (to take two of the most prominent examples), but pushing aspects of culture to the side because they carry baggage isn’t going to make society better. It will just cause people to feel alienated.
If we put forward politicians for elected office who also believe that there is merit in being involved in an institution that is defined on the basis of sectarianism, we damage and sully ourselves as spokespeople for our society. Elected representatives cannot be seen to be of one “community” or another. All our politicians need to represent all of their constituents and do everything to protect all of their constituents. I am not of the opinion that members of the Orange Order are capable of doing that. Therefore, they should not be Conservative Party candidates.
I’m not going to launch a defence of the Orange Order, because I think it has often had a less than constructive influence on society in Northern Ireland. But I am sure that it members wouldn’t agree that it is ‘defined on the basis of sectarianism’ and I’m absolutely certain that the bulk of Orangemen do not join the organisation in order to be explicitly sectarian. So my suggestion is, rather than say ‘Orangemen cannot stand because they cannot represent all our constituents’, or ‘GAA members can’t stand because their organisation demands its members promote republicanism, in its constitution’, let’s say, if we’re picking a representative group of candidates: yes, maybe there should be fewer Orangemen, but much more importantly there should be more GAA members, there should be more Irish language speakers. If we don’t accept that there are institutions in our society, which people value, and which are far from perfect and try to influence them to move with us away from sectarianism, rather than saying that they should go away, or should not be involved, then we’re not going to be successful (I would submit).
As for freedom of expression, I agree in freedom of speech. However, I do not believe that all who express certains views – especially views I and other Conservatives find repellent – should have equal rights or merit to put themselves forward as Conservative Party candidates.
I entirely agree with you. If someone expresses repellent views, whether in terms of sectarianism, racism or whatever, they should not stand on a Conservative and Unionist ticket. I don’t agree that it is possible to imply such views because of someone’s membership of an organisation which, whether we like it or not, has been part of the fabric of our society for generations.
Let me clarify again. I certainly think that there should be fewer Orange candidates. I loathe the idea that Orangeism should be a benefit to a candidature. I am not interested in banging the Orange drum. I simply think it is dangerous territory to start disallowing candidates because of their membership of the organisation. Although I appreciate that the comparison is not exactly the same, if I were to say that someone should be disallowed from standing because they were a member of the GAA, you would say that that was unacceptable. And you would be right. If you apply a principle you must be sure it can be consistently applied otherwise you risk accusations of hypocrisy.
We’ll have to agree to differ. However, on the point of sectarianism in the Orange Order, of course it is defined as such. How could one argue otherwise?
Here are the rules relating to membership:
Members are required to be Protestant. Most jurisdictions require both the spouse and parents of potential applicants to be Protestant, although the Grand Lodge can be appealed to make exceptions for converts. Members have been expelled for attending Catholic religious ceremonies. In the period from 1964 to 2002, 11% of those expelled from the order were expelled for their presence at a Catholic religious event such as a baptism, service or funeral.
The Laws and Constitutions of the Loyal Orange Institution of Scotland of 1986 state, “No ex-Roman Catholic will be admitted into the Institution unless he is a Communicant in a Protestant Church for a reasonable period.” Likewise, the “Constitution, Laws and Ordinances of the Loyal Orange Institution of Ireland” (1967) state, “No person who at any time has been a Roman Catholic … shall be admitted into the Institution, except after permission given by a vote of seventy five per cent of the members present founded on testimonials of good character …”
If that’s not an organisation defined by sectarianism can you provide a better example?
If that’s not an organisation defined by sectarianism can you provide a better example?
I don’t want to get into the position of arguing the case for the OO. But I imagine that members would argue that it is a faith based organisation which requires adherence to a particular brand of Christianity for membership. I don’t know enough about the organisation’s constitution to get into a debate about rules, but there is, for my taste, a rather rabid flavour to some of the clauses which you mention. They are, at best, anachronistic and hark back to a confrontational type of Protestantism. Which is not to say that an organisation using confessional criteria to determine admittance is in and of itself sectarian (in the pejorative sense). The point remains that a great many members (the greater number?) do not join the Order to discriminate against Catholics or to alienate Catholic neighbours. If you asked members what their membership meant to them, I doubt that many would offer a definition which could be described as explicitly sectarian. Similarly the greater number of GAA members would not say that they joined the organisation to exalt IRA men or advance the Irish nation.
One chooses the organisations one joins. I have never wanted to join the Orange Order because a blind man on a galloping horse could see that the organisation is sectarian. As for the GAA, as far as I know it does not discriminate on the basis of religion – although it clearly requires members to agree to its 32 county culturally pure ideals. However, frankly, I can’t imagine that a lot of GAA members would apply for Conservative Party candidature. If they did they might find themselves expelled from the GAA before being selected! Job done.
I have written to the Party Chairman’s office for clarification re. National Party rules vis a vis candidate membership of sectarian or racist organisations. I’ll publish the response here.
Jeffrey / Chekov,
I have enjoyed reading your exchange of comments. This is the sort of stuff we need on the Politics Show rather than the “topping the poll” nonsense.
Within the Orange Order, there is a document known as “Qualifications of an Orangeman” It calls on members as committed defenders of Protestantism, to…
“strenuously oppose the fatal errors and doctrines of the Church of Rome, and scrupulously avoid countenancing (by his presece of otherwise) any act of Popish worship; he should, by all lawful means, resist the ascendancy of that church, its encroachments, and the extension of its power, ever abstaining from all uncharitable words, actions, or sentiments, towards his Roman Catholic bretheren.”
That may look sectarian on the face of it but is it any more sectarian than any other Protestant faith. Consider, for example, the 39 Articles which condemns Catholic Masses as ‘blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits’, the Latin liturgy as ‘repugnant’ and attacks the ‘Romish doctrine’ of purgatory.
However, when you take the last words of the Orange Order qualification
“…ever abstaining from all uncharitable words, actions, or sentiments, towards his Roman Catholic bretheren.” (I have repeated them for emphasis.”
It explains that Orangism is not really supposed to be about sectarianism at all. In fact, the Orange Order cannot be said to have a constitution which is inconsistent with “Love thy neighbour” or any form of humanism.
Where the Orange Order does fall down is in its actions. It makes no attempt to do anything about segregation. It continues, for example, to boast about violence from the past, such as the battle of Dolly’s Brae in which Catholics were slaughtered.
I believe there is scope, within Orangism, to move away from its own sordid past. Indeed, there are those within the organisation that actually subscribe to that view.
I believe that in our efforts to combat sectarianism, we need to help and encourage the Orange Order to move away from it by building on the words of their own constitution. The same can also be said of the GAA who have a rule against sectarianism (rule 7).
An overt drive to marginalise the Orange Order out of politics would be a detriment to that objective. It would weaken our influence, efforts and credibility in that regard. I have reached the view that anti-sectarianism actually helps to re-inforce the sectarian system by generating counter-reactions. A rigid policy of stopping all orangemen from becoming candidates does smack of anti-sectarianism.
Moving beyond sectarianism, rather than directly confronting it, is the right way to tackle it. For those reasons and for the reasons set out by Chekov, I would agree with him.
My goodness Seymour, a bit of a U-turn on your part. I have emails from you that state the very opposite of views you express here.
We have a choice. We can hold up a mirror to the evil that is sectarianism in our society or we can do something to change it. Perhaps we might fail. But I’d prefer to try and fail than not try at all. That’s why, in some part, that I joined a national, non-sectarian, political Party rather than a sectarian local one. I had presumed that’s why you had too.
Jeffrey,
I have always been somebody who saw sectarianism as an evil that has to be tackled. My position has not changed in that respect.
It is absolutely true that I previously believed that the Conservatives and Unionists should not allow members of the Organge Order to become candidates.
Since then, I have carried out my own research. I have been persuaded by eminent authors on this subject that the best way to tackle sectarianism is to find ways to move beyond it, rather than using a confrontational “anti” approach.
Well the eminent authors you have been reading have had quite an influence Seymour. I quote from an email that you sent me just a few weeks ago that states a fundamentally different position:
“The observation that I have made…is that the thinking of the UUP leaders is not broad enough because of Orange Order influence…the OO problem affects grass roots activists as it does leaders. The OO organisation precludes members from entering a Catholic Church. How difficult will it be for their activists to campaign in Catholic communities? These people needed to be guided and enlightened.”
Which authors that you have been reading suggest a course of action based on accommodation as a means of removing sectarian based intolerance from society? I ask myself whether Martin Luther King would have stood up against racism had he had an alternative course recommended to him of accepting KKK members into his campaigns against racial segregation.
Maybe I’m missing something. But I think I’d prefer to operate among the political class that finds all types of sectarianism offensive.
The vast majority of our electorate is not in any way associated with sectarian organisations. Nor should our elected representatives or prospective candidates.