Perhaps we should ponder possible ramifications of the "serious threat" posed by dissident republicans on the life of Gerry Adams.
Many unionists refuse to believe that dissident republicans actually exist except as a flag of convenience for the IRA.
However, not only do they exist, their violence is fuelled by contempt for Sinn Féin's move into the world of politics, which they present as a betrayal of the sacred flame.
Republican dissidents are fundamentalists whose actions must be seen in the context of sacred traditions and infallible texts. The 1916 Declaration, or those parts of it that fit with 'correct interpretation', together with Dail Eireann's 1919 Declaration of Independence, constitutes the central sacred texts. Both are presented in the name of God and both legitimise violence. The words of republican 'martyrs' carry equal weight as do those versions of history that have become sacrosanct.
Dissidents mimic religious fundamentalists in treating texts and the words and lives of Irish 'heroes' as of ultimate significance in understanding Ireland and indicating what is to be done.
Protestant religious fundamentalists look to scripture for direction and inspiration, whereas Catholic fundamentalists pay attention to the legacy of popes and saints and the words of church representatives.
Sacred texts, however require translation and/or interpretation and this poses problems. When the New English version of the Bible was produced, Ian Paisley claimed it was not a version but a "perversion". When fundamentalists enter politics they also face the problem that constructive politics necessarily involves compromise and negotiation. For the republican movement politics means questioning core principles just as for Paisleyites, going into politics entails an acceptance of compromise, including for example, sitting down with Sinn Féin – something they claimed they would never do.
In the political world fundamentalists feel compelled to assert continuing loyalty to the sacred flame even when the very act of negotiation implies that their tradition is less than wholly sacred. The DUP have strategies for avoiding opprobrium. They claim justification for political involvement in the need to protect the interests of their people and they assert that, despite appear-ances, they are not engaged with the enemy.
Likewise, Sinn Féin can speak with two voices, on the one hand assuring the faithful that Irish unity is round the corner and on the other hand, assuring unionists that their consent and assent to change is essential.
All governments and parties have bottom lines – points beyond which they risk the wrath of their own ultras. There is however a difference between the authority of a religious tradition and that of political conventions.
Politicians know the value of sacred backing for their own political stances. This can be achieved through emphasising their adherence to revered traditions or through blood sacrifice and suffering. Even Ian Paisley saw the value of imprisonment and some loyalists know there is a kind of truth, albeit distorted, in Patrick Pearse's notion of blood sacrifice.
The problem is that in today's world overt ethnic cleansing and bloody sacrifice is self-defeating unless cloaked in the pretence of confronting grievous injustice. Even then violence provokes violence in vicious circles.
None of us are free from fundamentalist leanings. We need meaning and many prefer the certainty that derives from core traditions. Yet many fundamentalists appear to be aware at some level, that what they 'believe' isn't necessarily objectively true. When fundamentalists come together they mutually reinforce each other's beliefs that otherwise seem less than absolute. They tend to be separatist and to know little about life beyond their holy huddles. The sacred flame can serve as a smoke screen that hides the reality of dark forces and rivalries that motivate those who kill and maim in the name of God and Ireland/Ulster. If dissidents were to attempt to take the life of Gerry Adams this might demonstrate to the unbelieving that the Sinn Féin leadership has indeed been moving from 'armed struggle' to meeting the needs of the people in a more pragmatic way, but by that stage it might be too late.
