Decision time fast approaches for Jeffrey Donaldson. Anti and pro-agreement wings of the UUP could in theory find a modus vivendi but the bitterness has run too deep. Donaldson, while still disagreeing with party policy, could still retake the whip, abide by the rules and agree to refrain from bringing the party into further disrepute but Jeffrey is not for eating humble pie.
At the executive meeting bitter words filled the air. Allegations suggested that named pro-agreement people were not really unionist. The invective was so sharp that some feared a resort to violence but the deep hurt and exasperation was not all on one side. Some wanted heads to roll but heads would not willingly roll. Yet Donaldson seemed to burn his bridges and leave no room for accommodation.
He presented himself as victim of a conspiracy designed to purge him personally from the party but other more plausible theories suggest David Trimble was the real target of any conspiracy.
Jeffrey could now jump or be pushed but seems fairly confident of support from many on the right including a major section of the Orange Order. He can't easily give up the struggle inside the party but this would entail inflicting further damage on the UUP, making his position even more untenable.
He has to decide whether concern about the potential damage he might inflict by his own expulsion will hold back his detractors from firm action. The issue at stake is not clear because Jeffrey Donaldson negotiated the agreement he now opposes leaving the scene only at the last hurdle. His stance appeared to change with the focus of his attack moving to aspects of the recent joint declaration, then to the declaration itself before reverting again to the agreement.
The origin of all this goes back to the roots of unionism, which was a broad alliance with internal strains. The slogan 'united we stand, divided we fall' became almost a sacred mantra warning of the danger of divisions within.
Yet in the 1960s tribal elements infiltrated the UUP to strengthen resistance to changes demanded by civil rights. This resistance conflicted with the pluralist ethos of the Union but Ian Paisley actually led a section of Protestant unionism in opposing civil rights and the supposed rapprochement between the churches in a crusade to save Ulster from Popery.
He easily and successfully appealed to uncertainties within the tribal psyche and simultaneously raised fears within the nationalist tribal psyche.
The resulting clash diminished our pluralist heritage and strengthened the extremes.
Other unionists shared Paisley's uncertainty but recognised that conceding reasonable demands might diffuse discontent and the potential for violence.
Most unionists also seemed uncomfortable with discrimination and like the founding fathers urged that the minority be treated with fairness. However with Paisley's opposition on the outside and fellow travellers on the inside, it became impossible to stem the tide of malcontent and disaffection.
Eventually things got so bad Margaret Thatcher imposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which proved a bitter pill to many unionists. Yet in the end it may have saved unionism from itself.
It stimulated the desire for an alternative and the 1998 agreement enabled the UUP to retrieve the situation, take some control of our destiny and move towards the creation of a better society. But success involved risk taking at a time when Paisley was presenting anything short of dogged intransigence as unacceptably liberal and soft.
Yet against the odds David Trimble led the UUP successfully towards a potentially bright new future. But Rome was not built in a day and many in on the right preferred the relative security of the past while others were not prepared to wait and see.
Many have no idea what is at stake or what strategy is being followed.
Fears that David Trimble might actually achieve what he set out to achieve – full decommissioning and disbanding of the IRA – were worrying for many anti-agreement people who believed this was actually possible and would make
Trimble almost invincible. So the right wing hyped up opposition, with assistance from IRA activities last year and less than transparent decommissioning this year, and easily manipulated tribal fears.
However, the UUP cannot move to the right without betraying all that is best in unionism. Nor is there room for another tribal unionist party. The only viable alternative is to grasp this breathing space for reflection and renewal of the commitment to the Union in the context of a growing quasi-federal relationship between the parts of our islands. If unionism is about anything it is surely about moving beyond tribal politics and accommodating everyone as far is possible in a progressive, pluralist democracy in keeping with the best in our traditions.
