Since When is a Riot Recreational?
Derry/Londonderry is no stranger to riots, but in the past riots in the city, were these recreational? The recent spate of riots in Belfast over the 12th July has been described by a senior police officer as recreational and this description has been picked up by the press and media and is used ad nauseam. I’m old fashioned enough to believe that the Battle of the Bogside wasn’t recreational but was caused by the nature of the N. Ireland state. By the same token I maintain that the recent rioting in North Belfast is due to the nature of the state of N. Ireland. If these riots are recreational then why aren’t there recreational riots every 12th July in London, Liverpool, Manchester, Dublin, Cork and Galway?
In a recent letter of mine published in the Belfast Telegraph I put forward the idea that for a state to be stable it should have a single identity. N. Ireland has a dual British/Irish identity and therein lies its instability. This duality is bound up with U.K. constitution which underpins the state and keeps it in existence. As N. Ireland is constituted its conflicting duality is total. There are two conflicting Heads of State involved, two conflicting national flags being flown, two conflicting national anthems being sung and two conflicting national pass ports being travelled on. A state with such a conflicting constitutional duality at its heart is unstable and is prone to violence. The violent history of N. Ireland supports this position. Rioting in such a state is not recreational but is caused by the state’s nature.
Furthermore in election after election since the state was set up in 1921, each election has been a referendum on the constitution where roughly 45% of the population votes against the constitution and roughly 55% of the population votes for the constitution. For a state to be stable the constitution should have an overwhelming majority support. Suppose that in the U.S.A. the black community voted against the constitution at each election waving the Hammer and the Sickle and the white community voted for the constitution at each election waving the Stars and Stripes in that case the U.S.A. would be riven with violence and riot and inter-communal strife would be the order of the day. So it is insufficient to condemn violence and riot and write these off as recreational. In N. Ireland the cause of violence is bound up with the socio- constitutional nature of the state and if riot discord and division are to be got rid of, the socio- constitutional nature of the state will have to change Opposing rioters by the police and condemning them by politicians churchmen and journalists is a waste of time.
Since the constitution is the root cause of violence in N. Ireland the sensible thing to do is to change it to a constitution that is acceptable to all. The nuts and bolts of doing this can be found in the book—THE WAY IRELAND OUGHT TO BE (Amazon Books) A Republican constitution won’t fit the bill as such a constitution wounds the historic/cultural psyche of Loyalist Ireland which is loyalty to the Crown. To have an acceptable constitution for all Ireland the Crown will have to be part of it. Such a constitution can be found in a Federal Kingdom with a written constitution expressed in the National Government of Ireland Act. Such a written constitution would give Ireland one Head of State —A reformed Crown—, one National Flag –The Royal Flag of Ireland—a redesigned Irish Tricolour which synthesises the two traditions in Ireland, one national Anthem – there are many fine songs in Ireland any one of which would make an excellent Irish National Anthem–, and one Irish passport written in Irish and English.
All of this may be dismissed as an idle pipe dream but in the last analysis if riot discord and division are to be eradicated in Ireland a written constitution of the nature outlined is a prerequisite of that. With such constitutional reform of the U.K. constitution to a Federal Kingdom riot discord and division will wither away and recede into the textbooks of history.
Michael Gillespie
Hi Michael,
A very interesting post. I agree with the sentiment of your thoughts, and I’ve had manys a debate with people on this aspect of constitutionalism and its link with identity in the North, however, there is one over-arching issue which I have with these ideas, and that is the power of the majority.
Consociationalism can only go so far in this place in my opinion, I would be of the view that your ideas on the flag, anthem, Head of State etc would not solve the identity crisis which is at the heart of violence here, and would perhaps only fan the flames.
I would say the secondary reason for the violence on the streets, while I offer no excuse, is that the constructive ambiguity of the GFA ruined the goodwill of the process of moving from a conflict society towards normalisation.
Plus, having lived in the communities mentioned in the news over the last few days in Derry, there is a clear feeling that the change promised was not delivered for those people, because the constitutional imbalance is still there, but to address that, we cannot expect the vast majority of people on the island to again forfeit a part of their identity to please the few.
I honestly believe that only in addressing the issues that causes further conflict, i.e. Parades, member designation at the Assembly, and a long list of others, that were never fully addressed, instead they were kicked into the long grass to save the big successes of previous rounds of talks.
We might not like it, but we only have discussions when we are on the brink, lets sit down like adults should, and talk about those issues, and come to a real conclusion. However, not to be too cynical, SF and the DUP are not going to willingly address issues such as Parades because they built their own political platforms on defending their own communities position.
We can only work on the ground with our neighbours in the Unionist community to remove the barriers to a progressive society, I believe the ‘wreckers’, as President McAleese called them, will never be satisfied, even if there was a United Ireland tomorrow.
Hi Emmet
I thank you for your positive constructive intelligent reply. You write: -
“I would be of the view that your ideas of the flag, anthem, Head of State etc won’t solve the identity crisis which is at the heart of violence here but would perhaps only fan the flames.”
There is more to my ideas than just these. The notions of one flag, one anthem, one Head of State haven’t come about as a bolt from the blue but are a small piece of my thesis of a Federal Kingdom. The notions indicated along with many others are defined and documented in my version of the National Government of Ireland Act as the Irish constitution of a Federal Kingdom published in full in the novel —THE WAY IRELAND OUGHT TO BE (Amazon Books). This Act runs to over 20,000 words so the nature of a Federal Kingdom is a highly complex matter. But as I see it the change from U.K. constitution to a Federal Kingdom constitution is a sine qua non of the resolution of the historic conflict in Ireland and the full flavour of this change is given in the novel. The procedure to be used in this reform is wholly democratic. Ultimately a choice between an all Ireland Republic and an all Ireland Sovereign Nation whose constitution is the National Government of Ireland Act would have to be put to the Irish people in an all Ireland referendum where the votes would be counted separately in the 6 and 26 counties. The detail of this can be found in the published Act Article 22 pages 266-270. To start the ball rolling would require a new central political party in N. Ireland named –Federal Unionism-Early Sinn Fein.
You write: -
“I would say that the secondary reason for violence on the streets is the constructive ambiguity of the G.F.A. ruined the good will of the process of moving from a conflict society towards normalization.”
You have a degree of scepticism of the G.F.A. but my scepticism is total. The G.F.A. has institutionalised sectarianism in Ireland (all of it) and has copper–fastened a sectarian border. More over it has put in place an assembly at Stormont that is a constitutional obscenity where a statutory coalition of the far left and far right attempt to rule. Such an assembly is truly dysfunctional as is evident over the debacle in education.
You write: -
“However not to be too cynical S.F. and the D.U.P. are not willing to address issues such as parades because they built their own political platforms on defending their own community positions.”
This is sectarianism but further to that it should be understood that the Orange parades are part and parcel of the imposition of U.K. constitution on those who reject it; hence the violence in Ardoyne. U.K constitution was imposed undemocratically on Ireland in 1801 and is still imposed in N. Ireland by an aggressive Orange Order and an armed P.S.N.I. To be accepted by all the Orange Order needs to be depoliticised and made cultural and religious only. The nuts and bolts of doing this are given in the published Act Article 10 pages 231-235.
You write: -
“To remove barriers to a progressive society.”
Like many others you believe in inter-communal talks as the way forward. I don’t share your belief. It has been said a camel is a horse designed by a committee in talks. From the G.F.A. talks we have a “camel” assembly supposedly a “horse” at Stormont. Inter-communal talks will lead nowhere as the participants are at loggerheads over the constitution. What is needed is new thinking with new ideas leading to a new politics. In my writing endeavour I have tried to do that in the trilogy of novels on the Irish Problem namely– THE WAY IRELAND OUGHT TO BE (2007)—in – THE RAPE OF VIRGIN MUNCHINDUN(2010)—and in –SIZE MATTERS—coming out in September (Amazon Books). The Government of Ireland Act partitioned Ireland only the National Government can unite it. As it is now constituted the State of N. Ireland is beyond redemption.
Michael Gillespie.
Hi Michael,
Many thanks for your reply, I can see your point in a federal constitution for the United Kingdom, and National Government for Ireland, however it is my opinion that in using consociationalism to suppress the ‘mainstream’ violence in the North, while in a terrible mess at the moment through the muddle of GFA, (although I do support the power-sharing aspect of it, not the statutory coalition aspect.) – the constitution in use in the north is at its very limit, any further in terms of reform and I believe we would be back at the UWC Strike, the fear of Unionism that a United Ireland will be established without their considerations being taken into account will be realised, and the new Republic will be riddled with division. Perhaps we have the best of both worlds.
Hi Emmet
Thanks for your reply but I think you don’t grasp my Thesis of a Federal Kingdom. This is my fault in that I’m failing to communicate and make my message clear.
You write: -
“I can see your point in a federal constitution for the United Kingdom and a national government for Ireland.”
A federal constitution is not what I have in mind in the thesis. I’m putting forward a replacement constitution for a Federal Kingdom of the Sovereign Nation of Ireland and Great Britain (or vice versa) to replace the failed constitutions of the United Kingdom or of a Republic. A Sovereign Nation of Ireland whose written constitution is The National Government of Ireland Act within a Federal Kingdom of the Isles of the North Atlantic would not be a Republic but a Monarchy with a reformed Crown as Head of State.
You write: -
“ in using consociationalism to suppress main stream violence in the North.”
In my understanding of consociationalism it means the bringing of disparate warring factions into a friendly association. This is an admirable description of the purpose of the thesis of a Federal Kingdom. In the thesis consociationalism would mean the ending of enmities which give rise to violence and the bringing about of friendly associations. Consociationalism in my meaning wouldn’t mean the suppression of mainstream violence but the peaceful ending of enmity that gives rise to violence through friendly associations. The term consociationalism is fine with me but you seem to have a difficulty with it which I don’t understand. Please clarify.
You write: -
“the fear of unionism is that a united Ireland will be established without their considerations being taken into account and the new Republic will be riddled with divisions.”
I’ve made clear that the Sovereign Nation of Ireland within a Federal Kingdom context (not a U.K. context) would be a monarchy. The desire of Loyalist Ireland is to live in a Monarchy not in a Republic. In the thesis of a federal Kingdom since Loyalist Ireland would be living in a monarchy and would be free to express loyalty to the Crown why should they go on strike? The new Sovereign Nation of Ireland would be a new Monarchy not a new Republic. In my previous reply I pointed out that all of this can be done democratically respecting the wishes of the Irish people and nothing would be imposed as U.K. constitution now is. I hope this helps but since the Federal Kingdom thesis is a highly complex concept you would need to read the Novel —THE WAY IRELAND OUGHT TO BE— to get the full gist of what this is about.
Michael Gillespie