Happily Ever After?
Very recently, the major Catholic and Protestant parties combined and created a power-sharing government in Northern Ireland. Although still tied to London for major policies,
“The parties will share responsibility for the ministries with the DUP [Protestant Democratic Unionist Party] running the finance, economy, environment and culture portfolios and Sinn Fein taking on education, regional development and agriculture.”
The area has struggled with various forms of sectarian violence for generations; in recent decades, CNN reports at least 3,600 deaths and 36,000 injuries.
What amazes me is the perseverance of many citizens of Northern Ireland. The fighting was, at time, horrific, the beliefs were disparate, and the issues were divisive…but there is a cooperative government in place. Imagine the memories, hatred, prejudice, and concerns supporters on both sides had to relinquish. Entrenched, stubborn, non-compromising positions had to be abandoned in order to divide the responsibilities of running the government. Arguments such as, “We’re going to handle the economy,” “No, we’re going to be in charge of economy,” “No, we are,” “NO, we are!” had to end. I commend those in Northern Ireland who let go of the past in order to secure a better future. It was brave, open-minded, and responsible.
Now… who’ll be next? Palestine and Israel? Sunnis and Shi’ites? Democrats and Republicans? Even though I’m generally a “glass half-full” kind of person, I don’t see this happening anytime soon elsewhere in the world. How about you? Any hope? Any insights into what needs to be done? Any other groups you’d like to see come together?
Be brave. Be human.
Susan
May 14th, 2007 16:57
I agree wholeheartedly about the bravery that it must have taken to leave aside past differences and embark upon a shared future. I am less sure that the other conflicts you mention are suseptible to the same kind of resolution. It may be a simplistic view of the differences between sectarian violence in Ireland vs that in the Middle East, but it seems to me that one basic difference between these conflicts is that in Ireland there was a basic agreement by each side that the other had a right to exist. the disagreements were over the structure that both would live under and with. I’m not sure you can say that about sectarian violence in Iraq, and am certain you CANNOT say it aboaut the Isreali /Palestinian conflict where Hammas has repeatedly denied the right of Isreal to exist.
May 14th, 2007 16:59
Susan,
I think many would say, me included, that we do have a combined Democrat/Republican party, especially when it comes to the way they handle election cycles, personal liberties - officially restricted (law/presidential order) vs. unofficially restricted (political correctness) - fund raising, and use of media.
I think you are seeing the Sunnis realize the error of their ways now. They are actively resisting Al Qaeda in regions of Iraq, because they didn’t get themselves actively involved in political process when they should have. But you are talking about groups that have killed their own for decades, if not centuries, even without having a common western enemy. I wouldn’t bet on this changing until you had only one Muslim denomination.
Kudos to the Irish for doing what they did. At this point in time, I believe it was the right thing to do. That doesn’t mean that duality or unity are always in the best interest of the citizens. After all, dictators get 99+% of the “vote”.
Back to the U.S. I think the problem is that there is not enough diversity in choice. I’d prefer more viable options than everything being shoehorned into two all-encompassing parties. Many people talk about how they hate consolidation of power in business, but they fail to see the same thing happening in politics.
Sigh. Cats and dogs living together?
Rick
May 14th, 2007 17:44
Hi Todd-
I agree, the other conflicts I named are not the same as Northern Ireland’s…but what they do have in common is long-term hatred. (Of course, wanting your enemy to disappear off the face of the earth is different than just wanting them out of your country).
My main point was that in Northern Ireland, people have to let some things go that they’d been holding onto in order to have a peaceful solution. Neither side was going to capitulate or disappear. I think that would be necessary to cooperatively settle a dispute without violence. (Not that I’m expecting it anytime soon…)
Hi Rick-
I do agree that in a lot of ways the Republicans and Democrats are very similar…it’s just that publicly they never acknowledge it and focus on perceived differences (perceived weakness, mistakes, shortcomings, etc.)
Susan
May 16th, 2007 17:34
I was just thinking last week of the villages of France that suffered so badly from German retributions during WWII. When Resistance members blew up trains/bridges, German soldiers would line up the men in the local village and shoot every tenth one. Villagers often died rather than betray the Resistance. The damage done by this kind of action must linger on, yet it has not been allowed to prevent France and Germany cooperating in the European Union.
Last weekend there was an article by Stephen Pinker (of Harvard) in our Sydney Morning Herald. He presented evidence that showed that on any timeframe you want to look at - centuries, decades, or even years - the level of violence in the world is decreasing. For example, the level of homicides in Britain in 14th century was 24 per 100,000, compared with 0.6 in the 1960s. In recent years, the level of mass killings of civilians between 1989 and 2005 decreased by 90%. That figure may be partly an artifact of starting with a high year, but the general trend is downwards.
This downward trend in violence across the centuries and years must reflect changes in cultural perspectives, including the expectation that people learn to put old differences behind them.
It makes me realise once again that life was fairly horrific in previous times. As a woman, I am regularly grateful that I was born in the 20th century and in an affluent country.
May 16th, 2007 17:56
Hi Gillian-
Really interesting info on the decrease of violence. Placing violence in context really does make a difference.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about being thankful for the place and time of my birth. Could have been so much worse. No one deserves to be born in a war zone…
Susan
May 16th, 2007 23:36
Rick,
Like you, I feel the limitation of the two-party system which seems to encourage each party to define itself in opposition to the other, such that they can rarely be seen to agree on anything.
As for greater diversity, I wonder how that would work out? Italy has lots of small parties that have to team up to form a government. I guess that there is less of the simplistic red/blue position-taking and more negotiation, give and take. I’m not sure it results in better government, but it probably results in a more nuanced and interesting political discussion.
Here in Australia, we have several minor parties that get a fair amount of airplay - especially the Greens. In fact, our government is formed from a long-standing coalition of the two conservative parties, so that allows some diversity — though sometimes amounts to little more than special interest lobbying as one of the parties in the coalition represents farmers.
Now I have to ask a REALLY basic question — does the US have any parties at the national level other than the Republicans and Democrats? I don’t think I have heard of any at all. If there are any, what effect to they have? What role do they play?
We’ve had some interesting times when one of the minor parties gets the balance of power in the Senate - their voice is really heard, and they have considerable power. Does that happen in the US?
May 20th, 2007 22:18
Hi Gillian,
Yes, there are other national parties - Reformed, Libertarian, Green, Constitution, to name the major 2nd tier parties. If they have a high-profile candidate, they get press. (See Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, The Governator, Ralph Nader.) Otherwise, they are pretty much ignored in the national media.
Rick
May 21st, 2007 09:43
I’d somehow missed the original post until now. Better late than never, as they say.
I’m reading a book called “Korea’s Place In The Sun,” by Bruce Cummings (I highly recommend it - easy to read but packed with information and citations). South Koreans still hold out hope of reunification - witness the trains that recently crossed the border with N. Korea for the first time in 50+ years. The division of Korea was a civil war, but it was very much instigated by the U.S. and U.S.S.R. after Japan’s defeat in WWII. Koreans don’t view N. Korea as their enemy; they view North Koreans as family, which they are, Korea being a very homogenous society. However, there is a lot of debate on what would happen to the economy if reunification were to occur (assuming Kim Jong Il was defeated or dies leaving a vacuum). The fear is that the prosperous South will be drained to support the starving North.
The desire to unify peacefully will be the driving force for any movement - overcoming political obstacles by virtue of recognizing the humanity of all. And as Todd has said, unless there is a mutual recognition of this humanity, peace will never come.