08th Apr 2008
Postnationalist Bertie Ahern
I was debating Bertie Ahern’s legacy on the BBC Hearts and Minds programme last Thursday with Stephen Collins and Fionnuala O’Connor when she described Bertie Ahern as the first ‘post nationalist’ Taoiseach. I parked the thought at the time partly to placate my nerves at being on TV with two highly respected journalists, partly because I found the concept genuinely thought provoking. Mick Fealty of Slugger O’Toole dropped by O’Conall Street today for a coffee and a chat (more about that later in the week) and the topic came up again. Then I saw Stephen King, Trimble’s former adviser on a similar line in the Sunday Business Post.
So where did all this ‘post nationalist’ stuff come from? As far as I remember the term first entered the political lexicon during a Hearts and Minds interview John Hume gave as SDLP Leader during the 1999 European election a year after the Good Friday Agreement. It was followed by an article which SDLP MLA John Dallat wrote in the Irish News about the same time. John Hume used the term to illustrate the need for politics on this island to move beyond the narrow nationalisms which have dominated for too long. At the time Sinn Fein seized on the comment and tried to turn it on the SDLP claiming it meant the SDLP was no longer a ‘nationalist’ party. That their argument held no water was incidental. The North was not ready to move beyond the rhetoric of conflict and they tried to punish the SDLP for seeking to do so. For the record Hume defended his seat comfortably.
Is Bertie a ‘post nationalist’ then? Those who would argue yes say he has moved beyond the rhetoric of nationalism to canvass votes - he lead the dropping of articles two and three. That he is confident enough in his identity not to be a hostage to it. That he proved capable of engaging with other nationalisms, taking the inherent differences as a given and creating space for common ground a mutual respect to emerge. And that he put people first - jobs, education and prosperity, before narrow arguments about identity. On those grounds, they argue, definitely a postnationalist.
Bertie Ahern is a true blue Dubliner. For that matter so am I. He is a working class boy made good. Ditto here too (although he mas made much much better then me!). He is a proud republican and a committed Irish nationalist who believes in the principle of consent. So are the majority of people across this island. As Taoiseach he claimed to be a social democrat (viva el socialismo) and was undoubtedly an internationalist. He seemed happy to explore his role as the leader of a new Ireland, prosperous, diverse and in an ever deepening dialogue with the very many people on this island who consider themselves British. Ahern, like Hume left his prejudices at the door. He appeared as interested in jobs as in policing. By design or deliberately Fianna Fail today, thanks to him, is more ‘new republican’ then ‘old republican’.
Why is this interesting then? The word on O’Conall Street is that we will not see a referendum on a united Ireland this side of 2020. Just as well, because if it is ever to succeed one thing is certain. Irish nationalists will need to have convinced a significant part of the unionist community that a yes vote is not such a bad thing and that their identity, rights and economic status will not be affected by a unitary state. In other words unity will only be true when it unites people and their representatives have a lot of talking to do before they can claim to be united. The divisions are not just in Northern Ireland. There is a fault line between North and South built on seventy years of jurisdictional disparity. In the South church and state coexist in a way which has worked well for the 26 counties but would be unsustainable in a united Ireland and several generations have ignored the North, wishing it away with the coarse remark that ‘you are all the same up there’. Southerners do not understand northern nationalists and despite a constitutional claim over the territory which lasted until ‘98, bizarrely see unionists as foreigners.
Stephen King tells the story of when Bertie Ahern apologised to the UUP delgation after they were asked to remove their poppies before a meeting with him. That was back in the run up to the agreement. Ahern was right. The poppy is precious to very many people on this island and that is something we simply need to accept. It is also means something to tens of thousends of Irish nationalists who lost their ancestors in the First World War. To describe it as offensive is to stand there waiting to be offended. There are very many symbols, British and Irish, which will not survive in the new Ireland. I think the poppy will and so it should. But poppies won’t put money in your pocket no more than you can eat a flag.
When communities prosper they have the opportunity move on. When people’s standard of living goes up their insecurities go down. The south maybe be more postnationalist today then twenty years ago and that is partly down to its prosperity. The north can prosper too and with increased wealth, spread across the whole community, attitudes will change and priorities will shift. A stakeholder society will replace and dependency one. Ahern saw it all happen in the South. I am sure he believes it can happen here too. Maybe that’s what Fionnuala meant when she described him as ‘post nationalist’.
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.