From: dml@philabs.philips.com (Damian M. Lyons)
Subject: Re: This Favorite Lie Again.
Originator: dml@rabbit
Organization: Autonomous Systems, Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:10:10 GMT


In article <1993Jan26.035242.17348@massey.ac.nz>, E.P.Gormley@massey.ac.nz (Eamonn Gormley) writes:
|> I have missed your previous description  for a power sharing arrangement
|> so I cannot comment on it.  I was just wondering what are the in-built
|> guarantees protecting the rights of the nationalist community, and more
|> importantly how you propose to make it immune to destruction. It seems to
|> me that any potential unilateral decision on the future of NI alienates
|> some significant section of the community who are then hell bent on its
|> destruction. And so the cycle of violence continues where the only
|> victors are the warring factions thriving on the insecurity that has been
|> created.  I don't see the solution, so I would be interested to hear the
|> description of your vision.  
|> 

My primary assumptions are:
 - that NI is mostly populated by reasonable people being
   held to ransom by a minority of disaffected radicals
 - that the best approach to sectarian violence is to cut
   off its sources, not to combat its effect

It is a given that NI was created a Unionist statlet; that is, a state
with a purposefully created `safe` predominance of unionists. 
It has become unstable, not because all nationalists are bloodthirsty
killers and all unionists are badminded opressors, but because the
moderates on boths sides are deadlocked, and by and large, the radicals
get to say what happens. 

As a simplified example, say you have a committee of 9 people: 8 reasonable
people and one radical. Let us say that 4 of these reasonable people
disagree with the other four. In this case, the radical member gets
to 'govern' because the moderates are deadlocked; the committee goes with
whatever the radical decides, since both sides need him to make a majority.
I argue that NI politics is similar to this, but much further complicated
by issues such as a politician's need to maintain a viable political base, etc.
Although the NI population is actually 60/40 not 50/50, I argue the political
deadlock of moderates on each side is effectively the same as in the example.

Such a problem cannot be solved by democracy, since it is the mechanism 
of democracy itself that has collapsed. The flaw of with current 
British policy is that it  demands that Unionists and Nationalists
both fully sign on to whatever change is proposed. The mechanisms of
democracy in NI are screwed up enough that, saving a miracle, that
much agreement is likely impossible. 

I argue therefore that a unilateral action that does not return
NI to a united Ireland but which does empower Nationlists so they
have an equal say in the governing of the state is sufficiently 
bipartisan to be workable. Such an action would impose a government
which could only be broken if both parties vote together to abolish
it --- highly unlikely I would say. My first assumption above leads
me to expect that moderates on both sides would participate and would
work together to start to address their problems. My second assumption
above leads me to believe that once this happens, sectarian violence
will begin to decrease. 

Do I expect that some parties won't participate -- yes; the government
proceeds nonetheless. Do I expect sectarian violence to end -- not a
chance for years; that is still the best that can be expected, I would 
maintain.


-- 
_________________________________________________________________
         Damian M. Lyons | x6444 | dml@philabs.philips.com       
_________________________________________________________________ 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic