Go beyond the razzmatazz. Leave aside the haughtiness of Arlene and the fundamentalism of Edwin. Ignore the fracturing of a once disciplined, regimented party.
Instead seek out and listen to the architect and the strategist and you have some hope of better understanding the challenge and the dilemma that faces the DUP and the unionist community.
Spend a little time with Peter Robinson.
It must be a couple of years since Robinson warned unionism that it needed a table, a forum, to discuss what he called a permanent solution. He said that political process had allowed devolution to function but that the process itself had eventually resulted in a feeling that everything is temporary… ‘that the functioning of the Assembly will be repeatedly interrupted for negotiated pit-stops’. We are in one of those pit-stops now.
He argued for permanence, saying: ‘I am not talking of the shape of the new state that would emerge if there ever was a vote to exit the UK. I am alluding to the need to agree a process for negotiations, time-scales and not only the means of reaching agreement on all the particulars but also who would be involved in negotiating such an agreement’.
In the same statement he argued that there should be a fixed generational border poll which would provide clarity.
My analysis of his analysis is that he was telling unionism that it had no choice but to participate in a debate about the future, about the union, about a shared island, about the political future of all nations in these islands. He was pointing out the need for a two-track approach. One that dealt with everyday politics and one that dealt with what he called a permanent solution and others called constitutional politics. He was observing that unless the constitutional issue was corralled into its own track it would obstruct other politics from working.
Ironically, unionism and the Irish government are on the same page in that both have turned a deaf ear to his advice. None of the unionist parties will countenance such a fundamental debate. The ‘shared island’ unit established by the Irish government shows little appetite for promoting any policy beyond making Northern Ireland work.
Unionism is obsessed with the union and with its continuance or demise. Everything is seen through the lens of the union. Every political action is judged against it. Brexit, the sea border, an Irish language act, Covid; even health, education and the economy, are all subjected to a constitutional test.
But paradoxically, unionism will not talk about the subject that dominates their thinking. Even though the issue has become part of the chat and the banter of everyday life, unionism won’t engage in a serious conversation with itself or anyone else about the future.
Nationalism is growing more irritated with that mentality, with the continuing denial and blockage by unionism. That is resulting in a growing emotional withdrawal from the already fragile belief that Northern Ireland can be made work. Ironically, nationalism is more in tune and agreement with Robinson’s thesis: that the debate is not happening with the seriousness and the clarity that is needed.
Because of the fragile institutions and the coming election, it is unlikely that any of the unionist parties will revisit Robinson’s suggestion. It is even disappointing that since he expounded his thesis, he himself has not revisited or promoted it. Arlene Foster ignored it. Steve Aiken ignored it. Both have gone and been replaced.
There was a hint of a suggestion this week from the new DUP leadership that they would consult out and beyond their party. Edwin Poots is looking for a strategy. If he has a modicum of wisdom and courage, he will dust down Robinson’s proposition, wrap it up in his own words and shape and sell it to his party as the only sensible and permanent one that exists.
