By Jamie Bryson
In recent weeks we have again seen a relentless negative focus on loyalism, and in particular the Loyalist Communities Council (‘LCC’). I am not a member of the LCC much less any of the organisations it represents (UVF/UDA/RHC), and therefore nothing in this article ought to be taken as their words, but rather solely my own.
It is true to say that the identifiable weakness in the general loyalist and more specifically LCC position is the reluctance, for the most part, of activists to put themselves into the public arena on the media to articulate the message and case which loyalism wishes to convey. A written statement is no substitute for engaging in the cut and thrust of oral debate either on the airwaves or television. It allows positions to be expanded upon, arguments to be tested and ultimately the case being made reaching a much wider audience.
However, that weakness comes because of how the media and much of the political class and civic society treat loyalism and its representatives. Owing to that, most feel (probably with merit) it is a fruitless exercise to put themselves out there publicly because the price to be paid is relentless demonisation, without any fair treatment or consideration of points made.
I have written extensively about how media, academia and the legal profession are disproportionately dominated by nationalists and the platform afforded by this dominance is used to promote and advance a one-sided political narrative. This gives rise to a pro-nationalist and largely anti-unionist (and most certainly completely anti-loyalist) orthodoxy deliberately created by this nationalist network, who each across various professions credential and advance each-other and the political objectives of nationalism.
Loyalism and loyalist representatives are treated as an underclass and relentlessly demonised. That is the orthodox thinking promoted relentlessly by the nationalist elite network across the opinion-forming professions and institutions. All loyalists are thugs, gangsters, drug dealers and criminals (or worse). That the vast majority of loyalists, including those who were involved in the conflict, are decent people who are committed to building a better society for their kids and grandkids and wider community is an inconvenient and ignored truth. It is easier to demonise loyalism by reference to the lowest common-denominator.
It appears loyalism is not allowed a present, never mind a future. The media continually focus on ‘transition’, but none of them have ever engaged in a proper discussion about what that means- or what they want it to mean. If ever pressed, they resort to demanding loyalism must ‘go away’: where to, I ask?
Those making these demands don’t know what transition is, they don’t know what it looks like: they just know if it involves loyalists having any role in society, that it is (apparently) then not transition. In truth, they don’t want loyalism developing into contributing in areas such as education, community development, or entering the professions such as media or the law. That would pose a political impediment to nationalism and their dominance of those opinion-shaping sections of society, therefore such ‘transition’ would never be acceptable, and there is (and will continue to be) a ferocious campaign to ensure nationalist dominance of those professions continues, and all loyalists- and there are many loyalists who are not affiliated to any organisation- (and even unionists) are blocked off from pathways to accessing the professional class or opinion-forming and policy shaping institutions.
The true demand is that loyalism, as a political movement and ideology, must be crushed and trampled into the ground. The consequence of this (in respect of the effect on loyalist organisations) and completely undermining those within loyalism trying to move the organisations onto a completely civilianised footing is never considered. There is a reason why the IRA retain- seemingly perfectly acceptably given the lack of outcry in respect of it- an Army Council and certain structures to, as they would see it, retain ownership of the IRA identity and the legacy of that name. It is to prevent that being adopted by others.
In the same vein, of course it’s a legitimate discussion point- when looking conceptually at what transition looks like- to discuss whether, at least for a period of time, that practical reality requires that so too would loyalist groups need to retain some form of ‘praetorian guard’ to prevent the identity and legacy of the name of those groups being adopted by nefarious elements who do not wish to play a positive role in society. That is a difficult question, both morally and conceptually, but it is nevertheless one which must be honestly confronted. I offer no final view, but it is certainly necessary to consider what happens if a vacuum is created by virtue of deploying or creating a conceptual pathway in regards ‘transition’ which hasn’t considered all potential inadvertent consequences and providing solutions before such problems arise.
I do, of course, caveat that by saying it is ultimately a matter for those organisations themselves to come to a view as to how they progress (and, the reality is that genuine progress can only be made by an inclusive process which all stakeholders who are committed to positive transition buy into).
The media nevertheless do not wish to, it seems, engage in a proper debate around those issues, rather the default is that loyalism is bad and is fair game for demonisation, whereas a completely different standard is applied to republicans.
That is why, for example, when we see almost a full battalion of IRA terrorists standing outside the High Court holding ‘time for truth’ banners at a purported victims protest, not one single media outlet highlights this absurdity. If a loyalist walks through an airport to go on a family holiday, it is front page news and online click-bait. This, if nothing else, ought to highlight the sheer madness of the treatment directed at loyalism.
In equal measure, there is a relentless media focus on funding into loyalist areas, but no equivalent scrutiny on republican front-groups. I should say that, if I am honest, I have long held the view that a relentless focus on funding by some within loyalism (for the most part for the right reasons in terms of trying to improve loyalist areas) was a fatal mistake. If funding becomes the objective, then there is no price which won’t be paid to both secure it and maintain it. That relegates the ‘cause’ and fundamental principle to being a secondary consideration, with the dependency on funding becoming an overriding priority by stealth. That is not to say this is intentional or even at times conscious, but that nevertheless is the indisputable effect.
It cannot be unsaid that the hypocrisy of the nationalist political class (of which Alliance are part) is astounding. We have Sinn Fein who, according to all security assessments, continued to be directed and controlled by a still active, and still illegal, IRA Army Council. They have the moral authority of a goldfish, and indeed as I understand it they have some pending difficult questions to answer about ‘Tackling Paramilitarism’ themselves.
Then we have the SDLP. The party who sat with the IRA when bombs were exploding at Enniskillen, Shankill, Teeban and countless other murders were being perpetrated by that republican terrorist organisation. The party who supported naming a play-park after a republican terrorist and whose former leader participated in an INLA funeral. Their current leader, as recently as Brexit, threatened “civil disobedience…at a very minimum” if they didn’t get their way over the Irish border (and, of course, they got their way).
The Alliance party are, as ever, the self-righteous know-it-alls on every issue. But they too supported the Belfast Agreement which legitimised proscribed organisations as stakeholders in the peace and political process. They also sit in an Executive with a party directed and controlled by a proscribed terrorist organisation, and have been happy to campaign alongside republicans on issues such as securing the Irish Sea border’s imposition and an Irish Language Act.
The double standards of the political class must benefit from the disinfect of sunlight, and if the media are to be fair and balanced, they must engage with these blatant hypocrisies, rather than simply essentially joining as one in an Orwellian ‘two minutes’ hate campaign which, certainly from nationalism’s perspective, is not really because they care about the effect of paramilitarism (how could they given the continued legitimsing of the IRA’s activities over the decades) but rather in pursuit of their own political objectives.
Loyalism has, it must be conceded, at times not helped itself. There have been, and continues to be, real issues which ought to be addressed. In equal measure, loyalism has often been more interested in internal point-scoring and in-fighting (in truth, every individual and section of loyalism has probably contributed negatively to this cycle in one way or another at various junctures), with an intra-loyalist constant battle for identifying ‘good loyalists and bad loyalists’, with all sorts of competing efforts to define those categories for various reasons. It must be realised that a divided house of loyalism cannot stand, and therefore everyone in every section of loyalism- regardless of differences past or present- should commit to and play both individualised and collective roles in focusing on finding points of unity, and working together for the greater good of loyalism as an identity and ideology.
It is only by such unity of purpose, and a relentless focus on building and then sustaining pathways by which to allow loyalism to play a full and meaningful role in society, sustained into the future by a new generation who through the weapons not of guns or bombs, but of law books and advocacy, that loyalism can both preserve and grow.