Comments on: Postnationalist Bertie Ahern http://oconallstreet.com/2008/04/08/postnationalist-bertie-ahern/ Borderless thoughts on Public Relations, Public Affairs and anything else that matters from Conall McDevitt, MD of Weber Shandwick in Northern Ireland Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:12:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Tomaltach http://oconallstreet.com/2008/04/08/postnationalist-bertie-ahern/#comment-1593 Tomaltach Tue, 08 Apr 2008 09:29:29 +0000 http://oconallstreet.com/2008/04/08/postnationalist-bertie-ahern/#comment-1593 Very thoughtful post. I would agree that Ahern was post-nationalist in the sense that, despite his background in Irish republicanism (I gather his father was either a supporter of or a member of the old anti-treaty IRA), he was able to drop the baggage of pre-ordained outcomes in relation to the North (unlike many or his predessors in FF) And as your anecdote about the poppy makes clear, he was very sensitive to other parties in the Northern talks. I think this flows from the combination of his inate decency as a person and his political shrewness. In essence, he was not an ideologue, but a pragmatist. It should be remembered however that although Ahern (and Blair) did an excellent job in steering the process to conclusion it was Albert Reynolds and John Major who took the initial risk. At least they are the leaders who first engaged in public discussions of a framework that can be recognised as the embryo of the GFA. The Joint declaration of 1993 says in not so many words, that the Taoiseach will endeavour to change the Irish constitution - the follow up talks were more explicit on this than the declaration itself. In that sense it was Reynolds who first offered, if you like, to change articles 2 & 3. That he could do that without any serious rift in his party showed that FF had shed its greener heritage and was now firmly in the light green camp. This does not undermine Ahern's achievements in terms of the immense road blocks which he helped overcome later down the road, a feat which, as far as an Irish Taoiseach's role was concerned, perhaps only he could have pulled off. You mention the symbols which will not survive in the new Ireland. A poignant point. I would hope that in fact the new Ireland would be a place where many of the symbols, including the poppy, could survive, by way of better mutual understanding between the two traditions and by way of a more open minded sense of history. Sustained peace just might, I sincerely hope, allow the negative charge to dissipate from some of the symbols in question. Now that will really be a prized destination. I would say only at that point could a united Ireland be contemplated. Very thoughtful post. I would agree that Ahern was post-nationalist in the sense that, despite his background in Irish republicanism (I gather his father was either a supporter of or a member of the old anti-treaty IRA), he was able to drop the baggage of pre-ordained outcomes in relation to the North (unlike many or his predessors in FF) And as your anecdote about the poppy makes clear, he was very sensitive to other parties in the Northern talks. I think this flows from the combination of his inate decency as a person and his political shrewness. In essence, he was not an ideologue, but a pragmatist.

It should be remembered however that although Ahern (and Blair) did an excellent job in steering the process to conclusion it was Albert Reynolds and John Major who took the initial risk. At least they are the leaders who first engaged in public discussions of a framework that can be recognised as the embryo of the GFA. The Joint declaration of 1993 says in not so many words, that the Taoiseach will endeavour to change the Irish constitution - the follow up talks were more explicit on this than the declaration itself.

In that sense it was Reynolds who first offered, if you like, to change articles 2 & 3. That he could do that without any serious rift in his party showed that FF had shed its greener heritage and was now firmly in the light green camp. This does not undermine Ahern’s achievements in terms of the immense road blocks which he helped overcome later down the road, a feat which, as far as an Irish Taoiseach’s role was concerned, perhaps only he could have pulled off.

You mention the symbols which will not survive in the new Ireland. A poignant point. I would hope that in fact the new Ireland would be a place where many of the symbols, including the poppy, could survive, by way of better mutual understanding between the two traditions and by way of a more open minded sense of history. Sustained peace just might, I sincerely hope, allow the negative charge to dissipate from some of the symbols in question. Now that will really be a prized destination. I would say only at that point could a united Ireland be contemplated.

]]>