Ian Paisley (Big Daddy Paisley, not his son of the same name) said in a radio interview
last weekend that he could forsee a time when the DUP would sit down in
government with Sinn Féin. Or words to that effect.
He was talking about the short-term future and on condition that
the republican party had ended all links with paramilitarism and
criminality. Or words to that effect.
Now, I'm always a wee bit wary when I hear something sensible
coming out of the big mouth of Ian Paisley for, despite his trademark
protestations that he always speaks the truth; gives you it straight up
and tells you like it is, he has a long history of rabble-rousing.
However, he did say that he could forsee a time when the DUP and Sinn Féin would do business.
Ian Paisley knows that the conditions he mentioned for this
power-sharing exercise have already been agreed by the Republican
movement. In fact, they formed the basis for the historic agreement
that Paisley himself shunned on December 8 last year.
That agreement included provision for the speedy evolution of the
IRA into what has been described as an "old boys organisation", the
completion of decommissioning within a few short weeks and
acknowledgement by Sinn Féín that their political aims would be
furthered and achieved by political and non-violent means only.
Following the re-establishing of the Assembly and Executive – and
cast iron guarantees from the British that they would not allow the
unionists to cause the collapse of the institutions again – further
powers would be devolved here from London, including Justice and
Policing before Sinn Féin would take their places on the Policing
Boards.
With all this in place – and it might have taken a couple of years
– the institutional arrangements born from the Good Friday Agreement
would finally be up and running.
But Ian Paisley Snr baulked at the prospect of having this
magnificent edifice erected so speedily and promptly set the whole
process back by making unattainable demands around photographs and
sackcloth and ashes.
So it is a bit odd hearing him now saying he would be happy with
the type of arrangement that he rejected just three months ago,
especially since his son and other prominent members of the DUP have
been saying the opposite.
And what with all the brown stuff that has hit the fan since his
rejection of that agreement, you would think Paisley's line would have
hardened even more.
It is a tough one, alright, and you have to be careful of falling
into that old trap of taking what politicians say at face value. It's
not that politicians lie – although some of them do, and sometimes in a
most brazen and barefaced fashion – it's just that their words must be
proofed and tested for all the various meanings and nuances that can be
extracted from them.
So Paisley last weekend was either lying, misleading or telling
the truth. And if he was telling the truth it might just be because his
rejection of last December's proposal was only a stalling tactic to
tide him over until after the local and Westminster elections in May.
It could just be that the unionist electorate in general and DUP
supporters in particular will be swept up on a tidal wave of radical
modernism before that election so that anyone adopting a position of
power-sharing with Republicans will romp home on a landslide.
More likely, though, the unionist electorate will remain
steadfastly rejectionist, especially at election time, and all the
brownie points as well as the majority of the votes will go to those
who were not afraid to tell the IRA where to get off.
After the election, and with the UUP routed in local elections and at Westminster, it could be a whole new ball game.
My point is that perhaps the Peace Process is not dead after all.
Despite the bank robbery, the money laundering accusations (all
unsubstantiated, by the way), the tragedy of the McCartney family and
the Short Strand situation, Ricky O'Rawe's book and the no invitation
to the White House for St Patrick's Day... despite all this, there
might be hope yet.
There has to be. The only alternative to the agreement proposed
last December is a prolonged sojourn into the unknown, the uncertain
and the extremely unpleasant.
Nothing will happen on stage before the elections, nor during the summer marching madness.
By Autumn, however, we may well be all up for it again.
And don't forget, when there is no activity on stage, that is precisely the time when it is all action behind the curtains.
