More than 52 years ago Norman Porter, General Secretary of The National Union of Protestants (Ireland), stated in a letter to members, "Mr Paisley has clearly and unreservedly declared war on the Irish Presbyterian Church, and has openly said that it is his aim to split Presbyterian Churches from top to bottom". Not one Presbyterian minister, Porter added, would hold office if Ian Paisley also held office.
Porter said the crisis facing the NUP extended into the Church of Ireland, Methodist, Baptist and Irish Evangelical Churches. Evangelical clergy in all these denominations would not co-operate or work as office bearers in the NUP because of Paisley's methods, which they thought implicated the NUP. Nor did they approve of splitting churches. Yet according to Porter, Paisley was a friend to the members of the NUP's executive council. The situation was saved and prayers answered, it was claimed, when Paisley, "desiring to keep unity in the NUP, and realising that his declared policy was different to that of many others in the Union, tendered his resignation in a most cordial Christian manner".
Paisley's decision saved the NUP from immediate disintegration and enabled it and its successor, the Evangelical Protestant Society, to continue the work. Admittedly in numerical terms Paisley appears to have been more successful than the NUP. But for evangelical Christians success is not measured in numerical terms but in being faithful to the calling even when that entails suffering and hardship.
There is surely a lesson here for today's dissident unionist MPs. Should they succeed in further destabilising the UUP this would be at the cost of destroying what they claim to hold dear. Paisley, for whatever reason, refused to destroy the NUP. Leaving that organisation was risky and with no guarantee of success but Paisley took the risk and has his reward. Surely for the three UUP dissidents Paisley's example is compelling. To continue splitting the UUP is damaging to the cause they claim to uphold. The honourable course would be to follow his example.
The three dissidents may claim to be fighting for unionist principles but so do other unionists who have different perspectives. Paisley and the NUP regarded the issues they faced in 1951, as crucial matters of principle. In some respects they faced a more vital and compelling crisis that involved what must have been seen as almost sacred religious principles. Paisley seemingly wished to split the churches because he saw this as the only means of being true and faithful and to have a purified church. The others would have seen schism as being almost always wrong. Rather than cause untold damage, however, Paisley chose to leave and find his own way.
When I first attended Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) conferences in the Ulster Hall in the 1960s I was impressed by a large imposing banner bedecking the front of the hall, "United We Stand Divided We Fall". Many were prepared to forgo the luxury of publicly venting their frustrations and instigating discord, in those days. The UUP was to be a broad church, including a wide variety of opinion but members were reluctant to damage the credibility of the organisation itself.
Jeffrey Donaldson now suggests that freedom of thought is being denied in a pernicious way but in reality it is the future of the party itself that is being endangered.
The expression of dissident ideas has not been denied. Instead at times too much latitude has been given, considering that party policy was being publicly flouted and ridiculed and attempts were made to humiliate the UUP leadership. What other party would tolerate this?
The issues underlying the rebellion – for that's what it is – are of minor significance and represent a grasping at straws to justify a leadership challenge. The situation was misjudged and the three dissidents must now take the consequences. Seniority or length of service should not be consider-ed as mitigating factors but rather serve to heighten culpability. If the rebels are to follow the honourable path they should accept suspen-sion pending a hearing, abide by the results of the disciplinary tribunal and henceforth stop inflicting damage on the UUP.
If they wish to challenge the UUP they should form a new party, or align themselves with other dissidents or with the DUP, and fight honourably for what they believe. The rest of us will accept the verdict of the electorate even if this were to prove painful. Like Paisley 50 years ago, the dissidents have the potential to construct a new political party and challenge other parties. All I would ask is that they act with clarity, respect unionist principle and proceed with integrity.
