Against the backdrop of a season of unionist parades, can nationalists be expected to believe one Easter parade is offensive, asks Pól Ó Muirí
The decision of the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, to commemorate the 1916 Rising by reinstating an annual military parade is the right one, and will be welcomed by many ordinary citizens as an affirmation of the legitimacy of Irish independence.
Not surprisingly, his decision has been criticised by those who regard any show of public support for the Easter Rising as being the same thing as supporting the PIRA. The oddest thing about revisionists and Sinn Féin republicans is that they agree on one thing - Pearse was a proto-Provo. What Ahern has shown is that, in fact, he isn't. There is a third way, a Bertie way rather than a Blairite one, to viewing Irish history.
It is one in which the legacy of Pearse can be seen to be positive. Ahern was right to point out in his Fianna Fáil Ardfheis address that Pearse's reputation has suffered as much from his "friends" as his foes.
That there have been sustained attacks on Pearse from many commentators and historians in this State goes without saying. It has become almost an article of faith that every atrocity committed by the PIRA can be laid at the door of Pearse. He and the leaders of the Rising alone are responsible for warping Irish history and society out of shape. They cannot be rehabilitated.
Oddly, however, the same is not said of unionists. Sir Edward Carson, for example, is never linked to loyalist violence in the same way. Surely, if we are to claim that Pearse was responsible for the horror of the Enniskillen bombing, then we can argue Carson was responsible for UVF atrocities throughout the 1970s and 1980s? Ah, no comes the cry. Different circumstances, a need for perspective, subtlety is called for.
Can we not call then for the same in regard to Pearse and the Easter Rising - especially now when violent republicanism is being faced down and even they are having difficulty squaring their actions with their rhetoric?
Regrettably, as the Taoiseach pointed out, Pearse's only defenders have been the very people who have sullied his name the most - the republican movement. More often than not, those who would reject the Provos' interpretation of Pearse have felt it better to keep quiet than to offer an opinion that rejects both revisionist and republican readings. That approach will no longer suffice for the peace process age.
Mr Ahern's motives are certainly not aimed at giving succour to Sinn Féin. Despite many commentators' dislike of overt shows of nationalist pride, there are many people who quite like them. They do not necessarily regard them as being triumphalist, simply a reflection - whether you like it or not - that this State was born out of a revolution and that it has a set of distinct values and aims.
Why that revolution occurred is a question each generation asks and it is a question that needs to be answered and debated. Leaving the discussion of 1916 to Sinn Féin alone is not the solution. Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour need to place themselves at the heart of this debate. To forfeit it through embarrassment, lack of interest or cowardice is to allow Sinn Féin to win the argument by default.
Mr Ahern has recognised this. Yes, the parade may be regarded as a cynical move to outmanoeuvre Sinn Féin. So what? Politics is a cynical business on occasion and outflanking opponents is what it is all about. Journalists are used to screaming from the sidelines, often with little effect, but politicians like to win elections. Fianna Fáil recognises that there is a constituency who are far more comfortable wearing the green than respectable newspapers might have us believe.
As for unionists, the hard question is no longer what can nationalist Ireland do to assuage them, but rather how much more can nationalists be reasonably expected to do? Were the State to abandon the Irish language, fly the Union Jack over Croke Park and elect Ian Paisley president, would it satisfy unionism? Indeed, given the overwhelmingly secular nature of contemporary Southern society, why have so many unionist politicians been so reluctant to recognise that the Ireland they supposedly feared is dead and gone?
To misquote Mary Harney, Dublin is closer to London than Belfast in its mores, but the true blues of Ballymena are truer and bluer than ever. The simple fact of the matter is that the South's middle-class delights of good food, good houses and good holidays and their Anglophile cultural values have not persuaded unionism of the merits of a united Ireland.
Nationalist Ireland is being asked to believe that a single, solitary Easter parade in Dublin will offend unionists, but that an entire marching season of loyal Orange lodges is a legitimate expression of cultural allegiance, and that nationalist objections to some of them is extremely unreasonable. Further, sending an Irish naval vessel to partake in the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar is argued to show "maturity" on the part of the Government, but having members of the same Defence Forces march in their capital city is offensive.
Double standards? Perish the thought.