Quite a few years ago a priest friend told me off for claiming that Northern politics could only be understood as a numbers game, writes Denis Bradley.
It was at a meeting of opinion makers drawn from the churches, politics and journalism. One of the people present was Ruth Dudley Edwards. My priest friend claimed that my analysis was much too simplistic and carried with it the danger of reducing a complex cultural, religious and historic problem down to sheer numbers. I understood what he meant but I disagreed with him then and I still do. I can't be sure, but I didn't sense that Ruth Dudley Edwards was on my side of the argument.
Recently, a Protestant friend told me off about the new police service. He informed me that he could never support the PSNI because it was a political police force established to accommodate and placate a minority of people. After I challenged him that the minority argument could equally apply to the establishment of the RUC, we both moved - for friendship's sake - on to safer territory.
Last week, Ruth Dudley Edwards published an interesting article in the Belfast Telegraph. It was about Jim Molyneaux, the former leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. Jim is now 82 years old but he stood beside the three rebels, Donaldson, Burnside and Smith, at their press conference to announce their battle with David Trimble. Ruth describes it: "There at the press conference at which three losers threw half their toys out of their pram, stood the 82-year-old Baron Molyneaux of Killead looking on contentedly as his party split over an issue of stunning irrelevance." She then goes on to outline a list of political disasters, from a Unionist point of view, that happened during Molyneaux's watch. She wrote: "Afraid of doing the wrong thing, the quiet man of Ulster politics did nothing except invent a phrase - 'the greater number' - which Westminster never understood."
"The greater number" - what a wonderful phrase. It is so simple, direct and clear. Probably Ruth Dudley Edwards and certainly my priest friend would not agree, but I see it as a summation of Unionist politics. It explains the stance of Unionism during the last 82 years. It is at times their badge of honour and at other times their protective shield. It is a badge of honour because it cannot be denied that the "greater number" is one of the tenets of a democratic society. At other times it works as a protective shield against the ghosts of the future. When the census figures for Northern Ireland were released a few months ago, the sigh of relief exhaled by Unionists was almost audible. Sinn Féin and many commentators had predicted that the results would indicate a near parity of numbers between the Protestant and Catholic communities. The results didn't quite show that and unionism was in reprieve. There was a new confidence in unionism that had not been there for quite some time. It should also be acknowledged that there was great disappointment in the nationalist community because they have become very attuned to the numbers game. The civil war that has now broken out in the Ulster Unionist Party has the same dynamic at its root. There are certainly issues about personalities and leadership and strategy, but deeper still is the issue of numbers. There is a battle going on between those who judge that "the greater number" is the best and only shield to their preservation and those who view that same shield as suffocation and destroying both the party and the culture. History is not on the side of those who wish to destroy the old shield and move Unionism into a more creative and flexible political space. Ruth Dudley Edwards is very supportive and indeed praising of David Trimble's leadership. Maybe she is right. She has certainly taken the trouble to understand and interpret Unionism. She might have to acknowledge, however, that he has antagonised so many of his friends, both within and outside the UUP, that he has made it a lot easier for his enemies. But I do disagree with her when she writes that Molyneaux let the forces of greenery advance and that the present split and fracturing has made a lot of people happy, most notably Dublin, republicans and the DUP. The tone of those sentiments only reaffirms and strengthens the belief that everyone else is out to do down and damage the Unionist Party.
There is another way of looking at this issue. Ruth rightly identifies that Westminster never understood Molyneaux's phrase "the greater number". If that is correct, and I believe it to be so, then their own government, their own parliament is either confused or in diametrical opposition to the central tenet of unionism. That, more than anything else, leaves unionism in a weak and vulnerable position.
They could have and still can find a stronger and more honourable political position within the structures of the Good Friday agreement. Within that they can be certain of forcing republicans away from their military tradition, of having the benevolence of two governments and the good wishes of the vast majority of the people who live on the island of Ireland. Now that definitely is the "greater number".