Only one man has transcended the flaws of the other nominees to claim the title of 'Ireland's Greatest', writes SARAH CAREY
I'VE BEEN watching Ireland's Greateston RTÉ 1 on Monday nights – the vehicle through which the public votes for "Ireland's Greatest Person". These phone-in public votes are always a bit dubious since the nomination and voting process favours glamour over substance and current personalities over the forgotten dead.
My prejudices are confirmed by the nomination of three figures from the present – John Hume, Mary Robinson and Bono – while the remaining two are 20th-century people: Collins and Connolly.
Nevertheless, I’ve decided that not only shall I vote, but I’ll canvass on behalf of John Hume whose case was advocated brilliantly by Miriam O’Callaghan on Monday. Let’s look at his competition.
Mary Robinson, as a barrister and senator campaigned for equal rights for women and homosexuals and fought important environmental cases too. She became the first woman President and has taken up global positions championing human rights.
Her achievements have tangibly improved the lives of people, been inspirationally symbolic and her presence on the global stage is not just evidence of a great career but improves the image of Ireland.
But if I compare her with other heroes she loses out on two grounds. First, her election as President owes as much to the voters as it does to her. She ran, nominated by the Labour Party, but the Irish people were the ones who voted for a feminist, an intellectual, a working mother and radical.
Second, I applaud her bravery and expertise in taking and winning the equality cases. While these made her unpopular with the establishment at the time, she could always operate – and still does – from a position of material comfort. She challenged the political and legal consensus but afterwards could go home to a safe house at night. There’s a big difference between that life and other campaigners throughout history who endured personal suffering and grave physical risks for others.
Bono’s case is similar. I know some people complain about his campaigning but I’m a supporter. He’s been successful in persuading world leaders to cancel significant amounts of developing world debt. His public meetings with world leaders, while potentially endorsing dodgy characters, are constructive. You can’t achieve if you don’t engage. He’s smart too. His views are well researched – it’s not just cheap slogan making. And of course, the man is a stinking rich pop singer. He’d be quite entitled to spend his life partying instead of travelling the world campaigning for the poor and indeed for Ireland too. The fact that he’s rich and still cares is a testament to his character. But like Robinson it means that the risks he takes are limited to his reputation – which let’s face it, has been enhanced rather than damaged by his work.
Michael Collins and James Connolly, the dead nominees, led far less comfortable lives. Collins founded the State and Connolly founded the Labour Party and, with James Larkin, the Irish Transport and General Workers Union. I wouldn’t subscribe to his Marxist views but given the condition of workers in those days I’d forgive him entirely for them. Indeed, it’s a pity both men are not about today. Collins would stiffen our spines and Connolly would have plenty to say to current union officials about “upskilling funds”.
Both died for their causes which puts them in a different league to Robinson and Bono. However, their use of violence damages their respective cases. Pearse’s dream of 1916’s “blood sacrifice” was repulsive. While Collins was a reluctant participant in the Rising, predicting its disaster, his part in the War of Independence has been glorified to a bewildering degree.
The assassination of sometimes lowly and quite innocent officials, thus honing modern guerilla warfare, is a morally questionable legacy even if it gave us the Free State.
But how would the State have evolved without either 1916 or the War of Independence?
Perhaps we could have achieved more over time and become a better nation today? A vote for them is a vote for violence when it’s far from clear it was the only way.
Now we can see how Hume transcends the flaws of the other four nominees. He campaigned for civil rights and peace not from the comfort of a court room or the glamour of the world stage, but on the streets and through passive resistance.
He faced down both armed soldiers and violent republicanism with nothing but moral authority.
With the appalling living conditions faced by the Catholics of Derry, he faced similar provocations as Collins and Connolly but did not resort to violence. He fought peacefully but without the moral support that Robinson and Bono win from their peers. His determination to talk to Sinn Féin and the IRA, resulted not in praise but vicious criticism from many quarters. He exposed himself to grave physical risks and the personal toll was heavy. Miriam O’Callaghan’s description of him breaking down at the funerals after the Greysteel massacre revealed how deeply he suffered. Even his wife begged him to stop his work.
But his strategy was ultimately validated and he delivered peace to this island through peaceful means. It’s an achievement and sacrifice that doesn’t compare to his fellow nominees.
Text Great 4 to 53125.