The Northern Ireland Development Group, which was formed in January last year to improve the messaging of those who advocate for the continuation of the union with Great Britain, recently published a new discussion document called the Unionist Predicament.
The title was well chosen. The predicament is brought into focus by a single question: how can political unionism transform itself to better reflect and represent the needs and aspirations of a changing Northern Ireland?
Given the UK election outcome for unionist parties, the loss of three Democratic Unionist Party seats, including one to the Alliance Party, the need to address that question has become particularly urgent.
At the heart of the problem has been a historical tendency for political unionism to be reliant on loss and fear to maintain credibility and to communicate this position through reacting to threats, real and perceived.
Say Nothing: Bingeable yet sober-minded eulogy for the tragedy of the Troubles
Politicians need to decide if Northern Ireland is desperately poor or so rich it requires no help
Local history: From William Orr and the not-so-united Irishmen to a box of underwear labelled ‘ass sizes’
How multicultural Ireland is contributing to a growth in the Presbyterian Church
This approach has prioritised a restorative rather than transformative outlook, using resistance to try to calm an increasingly worried audience by asserting the need for preservation and safety while the world around changes.
In response, the underlying message of the document is one of concern that if political unionism does not transform itself into a more inclusive and expansive political force, its ineffectiveness and perceived irrelevance will not only continue but worsen.
The document calls for political unionism to emphasise its relationship with Britishness and the broader dynamic of identity that exists across the four UK nations. It also calls for greater collaboration between unionism and loyalism by putting education, employment, health and the environment at the core of policy and action rather than just remaining preoccupied by the threat of a united Ireland. Importantly, it suggests that political unionism should think and articulate policies that relate to all rather than just some.
Given that younger people appear to be voting less on the basis of ideology and more on the basis of issues, there is a fertile ground for messages that connect with notions of inclusion and the common good. New communication that concentrates on progress, potential and possibility along with the interconnectedness of technologies and communities and the emergence of more fluid identities all expressed within a context of citizenship and responsibility is likely to offer greater appeal than the tired “vote for us or get them” narrative.
In looking for a more inspiring message political unionism might also be well advised to explain what the union can bring other than some reassurance that Ulster nationalism is still alive.
What are the values that draw from the best of that union in terms of diversity, fairness and tolerance and how is the creativity that has sustained that union important for Northern Ireland not just in the past but into the future? More, looking outside of the immediate world is vital with supportive collaborations in the US and Europe and better relations with Dublin all key for garnering help to build wider international and national influence.
The reluctance of political unionism to cultivate and maintain fruitful relations with Dublin about a shared society is counterproductive given that this is the best way of ensuring that a united Ireland is not imposed but modulated into another arrangement, one best served by respectful co-operation and a commitment to good neighbourliness. Fears about a united Ireland are likely to grow without new relations that demonstrate the possibilities and value of an alternative.
Even on the point of reconciliation political unionism remains weak and confused. Sinn Féin fasten reconciliation to a united Ireland that will knowingly exclude unionists and who rely on the national issue to frame notions of progress in ways that seem attractive for nationalists and republicans. In contrast, for unionists there is no corresponding attraction, only repulsion.
Yet this does not and should not mean that political unionism must persist with avoidance of the issue merely because another perspective is in conflict with its own. It merely highlights that divisions of national identity may be the wrong basis from which to initiate such a debate and that another route is better.
Perhaps political unionism should seek to develop reconciliation not in relation to ideology but, as a number of voters want, to issues and concerns that affect all, such as sectarianism, climate change and post-generational trauma. In doing so, political unionism could develop movement and confidence by engaging with shared rather than divisive concerns.
The term reconciliation may suggest that those who use it are reasonable, but when they do so on the basis of making others look unreasonable, then questions of integrity and intent arise and progress is lost. Perception shapes reality, and the reality that continues to prevail in political unionism is one of argument over who can best prevent things getting any worse. This is not just counterproductive and backward-looking, it is self-defeating.
There are, of course, progressive elements within political unionism but their message is not breaking through because the atmosphere has not been managed well enough to reflect a growing social desire for a better and different future. Yes, positive changes have to be demonstrated and not just talked about. Yes, transformation requires not rejection of the past but using the best of it to drive change. Yes, consistency, coherence and concision are all vital parts of effective political communications. And yes, political unionism may well need to shrink before it can regenerate, which requires thinking beyond reactive short-termism and, rather, in terms of both gradual and long-term change.
Further, as well as providing new messages about hope and political responsibility where benefits for all can be seen, strategic and tactical planning must concentrate on the public being able to experience this change and feel its importance for shaping the new world.
As a starting point political unionism has to move from an immediate reactive focus to a long-term focus on development and social progression and become alert to the need for an accumulation of marginal gains. Until this happens it will continue down the road of decay and insignificance.
Graham Spencer is Professor of Social and Political Conflict at the University of Portsmouth. The Unionist Predicament can be found at nidg.co.uk
