Peace-building is about trying to understand our perceived enemy and about trying to see conflict through the eyes of our enemy, according to the 'Principles of Loyalism' document.
One of the basic requirements of peace is the establishment of trust or at least a modicum of tolerance. We need to recognise basic humanity on the other side. In war however trust, like truth, is one of the first casualties while the humanity of opponents may be grossly distorted. In Northern Ireland we have demonised each other and it is all too easy to deflect blame onto the physical force people because of their violence. Both sets of terrorists committed unspeakable horrors while many 'spectators' damned both with curses. That was understandable but did nothing to end violence.
Bigotry can become inverted enabling us to passionately hate the 'men of violence' while anti-sectarianism risks becoming sectarian through demonising the supposed bigots. We become like those we hate because we are drawn towards them. Many paramilitaries became violent because they hated the violence of others. Even illicit state violence can reflect the same impulse. In violent situations security force personnel may become indistinguishable from terrorists, yet we demonise 'legitimate violence' at our peril.
The Bible speaks of the need to be as "wise as serpents and harmless as doves", warning against gullibility but also about getting caught up in reciprocal antagonism. It seems natural to 'return the serve' but in so doing we risk being caught up in the same mechanism. Last week someone called for those who viciously attacked a man on the Shankill to be publicly flogged. This seems like a reasonable reaction to unspeakable violence, but returning evil for evil drags us all into the same pit.
Loyalists and republicans are no more ogres than the rest of us, and
positive things sometimes come from unexpected sources. The 'Principles of Loyalism' speaks to and for the UVF and RHC as well as the PUP, and possibly after last week's developments, the UDA and UPRG as well. We may disagree with aspects of loyalist thinking but there is evidence of perceptive progressive thought in this document. It accepts that decommissioning and demilitarisation must be honestly addressed but in practice will involve a "slow, measured and drawn out process". Demobilisation has to take place "in tandem with the development of genuine trust and mutual respect" between protagonists. It is precisely trust and mutual respect that is missing and which loyalists are now trying to address.
The "illicit drugs trade" is roundly condemned as "incompatible with the principles of loyalism" and while tensions remain, sectarianism, despite appearances, is increasingly rejected.
The 'Principles of Loyalism' claims that loyalists have set out on a path of "genuine dialogue" based upon "honesty, decency and democracy". Peace-making, it claims, is not for "peaceniks" but for the "volunteer and the loyalist activist as well". Most importantly, peace making must "have an impact on our own lives" and has to be lived out. There is no room for "settling the score" or for "victims becoming victimisers". Loyalists must develop "creative alternatives to violence through dialogue with the enemy".
Peace building moves "from violent responses to conflict to non-violent responses".
We do not start from a promising base and many are deeply disillusioned, but we can only start from where we are. Demonising others seems an attractive option but in reality it avoids responsibility for initiating change. Paramilitaries have a challenging road to travel and yet in some respects they have moved further than much of civil society.
Last week one correspondent correctly pointed out that I had left out "sexual orientation" from the list of rights upheld in the PUP document. I had inadvertently missed a line upholding rights irrespective of "political opinion, age, marital status, sexual orientation". In other words these loyalists are committed to upholding all human rights for all sections of the community, including the right to hold opposing political opinions.
Many republicans and nationalists uphold the same rights.
A basic right is the right to exist and to be different. The demonising of unionists, nationalists, Orangemen, Catholics, Protestants, the PSNI or GAA is wrong irrespective of our spurious 'justifications'. We must challenge things we see as wrong but never demonise. When we demonise we exclude and scapegoat. This was once THE way to resolve disputes (ie at the expense of those excluded) but it no longer works. Making true peace entails broad inclusion. It is a necessary, if at times extremely difficult and complex, project and we all have a part to play in it.
