The inability of the political parties to make the final deal and implement the outstanding parts of the Good Friday Agreement was sad but not unexpected. It seemed clear at an early stage that, although there was considerable movement, the gap would not be bridged. For many this confirmed negative expectations and so they have come to the conclusion that it's all over – but they are wrong.
Tony Blair reflected the views of most people, including the Irish and American governments, when he insisted that the transition to entirely peaceful means by republicans had to be complete. Republican concern however was apparently that even had they decommissioned all arms, ceased all paramilitary related activity and criminality and transformed into an old comrades association, unionists would still not come to the party. Such a concern was entirely misplaced. Not only would David Trimble have engaged, but the so-called rejectionist unionists, including Paisley's DUP, would have been left without even a fig leaf for cover.
There are, however, always those who will obligingly confirm our worst fears. The DUP leadership once again openly illustrated the scurrilous and reprehensible nature of their politics by appealing to the lowest common denominator in the shape of pots calling kettles black.
The vile personal abuse against Brian Cowen illustrates the dearth of good sense and manners as well as maturity that is vintage Paisleyism. Nor should it surprise anyone that it is the clerical element that displays least Christian virtue. The DUP has sacralised sectarian division and betrayed the core of the Gospel they claim to uphold.
The words and thinking of the DUP leadership don't represent even the real politics of everyone in the DUP let alone in right wing unionism. The insults that have traditionally been hurled at the "enemies of God" (read enemies of Paisleyism) over the years are an acute source of anguish to most unionists and Protestants. A significant number of DUP members must surely also have sufficient honour about them to feel decidedly uncomfortable at such vicious diatribe.
Ulster Unionists are ready to work the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement but only in the context of a final end to paramilitarism and of any sense of threat that inevitably derives from the presence of a fully armed private militia. The IRA statement and Gerry Adams's clarification of it moved us closer to what was needed but not quite close enough. The inability of Gerry Adams to specifically rule out named activities together with the reported refusal by the IRA to incorporate the actual words of Gerry Adams meant that the process had to be brought to a speedy, if hopefully temporary, end.
Republicans are angry and unionists are pessimistic. The latter believe that republicans are not really serious or that they are caught in a bind of fundamentalist orthodoxy. Yet what happened demonstrates that the ancestral voices are not absolute even if the final pieces cannot be put together at this time. Some republicans know that the existence of the apparatus of paramilitarism, in and of itself, is the major constraint on freeing up dialogue and securing the final steps towards stability.
As the negotiators move towards greater clarity and less ambiguity, the possibility of reestablishing a stable assembly and executive is strengthened.
Dialogue and negotiation has to continue but it must be frank and open to enable trust to grow so that courage can be exercised and negotiations become successful.
Political leaders cannot move decisively while their people are largely ignorant about what the real issues are. Yet negotiations cannot be entirely transparent and are necessarily somewhat divorced from ordinary people. But this enables unwarranted suspicion to grow.
We live in a divided society in which the schools on the whole have not greatly increased mutual understanding of divergent traditions.
All political groupings, though admittedly some more than others, continue to inculcate one-sided stereotypical perceptions based on good and bad guys – 'we' being the good guys, the others inevitably being the bad guys. We construct sanitised images of 'our own' traditions while we demonise others. This is almost inevitable in divided societies.
We must find ways of opening up the dialogue beyond what Ian Paisley referred to as "Daffodil teas" and "Pea Soup Suppers" not to mention pleasant Coffee Mornings in which no one says anything that could possibly draw attention to an unpalatable reality. In moving beyond the niceties we could begin to overcome the legacy of division. On this basis new and radical change could take place and historical divisions be transcended. If we are to get close to finalising negotiations and resurrecting the institutions by the autumn, these issues must be seen for what they are, matters of some urgency.
