The UDA-linked Ulster Political Research Group (UPRG) harks back to the New UPRG of the late 1970s initiated by John McMichael. NUPRG thinking reflected frustration with established politicians consumed with vying with each other for political dominance. The NUPRG gave serious consideration to radical ideas like Ulster independence and emphasised that loyalist working class concerns deflected militant energies into constructive political channels. They advocated a bill of rights and their deliberations are reflected in Beyond the Religious Divide (1979) and Common Sense (1987). The recently formed UPRG reflects a similar move from internecine conflict towards political and social issues. Much of loyalism seemed to be sinking into a morass of racketeering, drug dealing and criminality so change was an urgent necessity.
People like Billy Wright, who formed the LVF in the mid 1990s, suspected that elements within loyalism had gone over to purely secular working class concerns. This fuelled militancy and feuding between loyalist groups and more recently caused havoc within the UDA itself. Meanwhile sectarian attacks and interface violence escalated. Attacks were often blamed exclusively on the UDA before it became clear that republicans were involved and suspicions surfaced that they were manipulating militant responses.
The resulting chaos seemed to threaten society with conflagration and the UDA with disintegration but a determined leadership emerged and ditched the leadership of the lower Shankill's notorious 'C company'. Meanwhile, the UPRG engaged in extensive consultations laying the foundation for a radical new initiative before the end of February.
They announced that associated paramilitary groupings would enter a period of "military inactivity" lasting one year and to be reviewed on a tri-monthly basis. They would appoint a new person to the international decommission-ing body with decommissioning becoming possible when the IRA engaged in genuine acts of completion. The UPRG acknowledged that responsibility for law and order lay with the security forces but loyalists would remain as a "last line of defence". This is a traditional loyalist position reflecting distrust of the security forces and the British establishment. With their traditional enemies inside the Stormont executive and the Irish government consulted on major issues, distrust was rife well beyond the ranks of the UDA itself.
Frankie Gallagher, of the UPRG, claims that the UDA was never pro-agreement. It was only the leader-ship of the now defunct UDP who were committed to the GFA; most grass roots loyalists remained sceptical. The DUP, meanwhile, aided scepticism by refusing to engage in the negotiations and work with the institutions while ostensibly trying to subvert them. In contrast the UDP leadership engaged in negotiations but while the UDA supported the peace process they experienced major difficulties with the political process. The agreement itself was undersold, misunderstood, misrepresented and (inevitably) poorly implemented largely because of tardiness of the IRA in relation to decommissioning.
Drug dealing and criminality was highlighted in the media as a (mainly) UDA affair, which damaged its credibility. The UPRG is aware of this legacy and seeks to create circumstances in which these things can be consigned to the dustbin of history.
However, when organised militant groups are involved, this represents greater danger for the community and is also incompatible with loyalism.
The UPRG say they are making a concerted effort to rein in those primarily interested in illicit drugs, private gain and sectarian conflict. They are moving back to the position of the 1994 ceasefire when loyalists said they would, "never again permit our political circumstances to degenerate into bloody warfare". Working-class loyalism coincided with a lack of cultural as well as physical capital and this makes it difficult for the UPRG and others to present loyalism in a positive light.
The UDA represents our most marginalized, misrepresented, deprived and alienated community. Therein lies danger.
When loyalists move in positive directions scepticism perhaps inevitably reigns, but recent moves should not be quickly dismissed if we don't wish to drive them – and us – back to futility and violence. We must give them time to prove that this is indeed a new beginning.
