Vote SF and counter the pandering to Unionism
By Laurence McKeown
Brian Feeney posed a very pertinent question last week. ``When is
a majority not a majority?'' Simple. When the majority does not
include a majority of unionists.
The question was raised prior to the vote in the referendum when
some felt that the No vote was going to be much higher than it
actually was on the day. Personally speaking, I always felt that
the Yes vote was going to be in the region of 70%, not because I
have a crystal ball but because although those campaigning for a
No were very vocal, they were very vocal in halls that were often
only half full. If Paisley had had a groundswell of opinion
behind him he would have held outdoor rallies. That has been his
trademark since the 60s. He's not one who likes to be shut away
behind doors. But that's what happened.
The No campaigners had Blair shaken though and, as so often
before, the cavalry had to come riding to the rescue of Trimble.
To be honest, if that's the cavalry I think I'd make a deal with
the other side. I mean would handwritten assurances mean more to
you than ones typewritten? Be honest now. Would this paper ring
more truthful to you if all the articles were penned in the
handwriting of their authors? Could you even be bothered taking
the time to try and decipher some of the scribbles? And did the
large blown-up copies of these scribbles tell us anything
different from the neatly packaged and presented print that was
dropped through all our doors?
The pandering to unionists continues unabated though and is an
indication of what is ahead of us. The British government will
continue to attempt to play down those aspects of the Agreement
which are favourable to nationalists and bolster those aspects
which the unionists regard as the only reason to agree to the
document. Prior to the signing it was Trimble who had to be
coaxed and cajoled along. Now it appears that an effort will be
made to bring the No voters in from the cold. Everyone is being
so sensitive towards them. It makes me wonder what would have
been said if Sinn Fein had been in that category?
On the other hand, pressure from the media is already mounting
against the nationalist residents' groups who are opposed to the
Orange parades going through their areas. The logic seems to run
that, well, nationalists were in favour of the Agreement, the
Agreement was supported overwhelmingly, so nationalists won and
should now ``give something'' to the unionists by way of a
compromise. We are made to believe that the Agreement was a
``green'' or nationalist document whereas we know that the elements
in it that are favourable to our community had to be fought for
tooth and nail right up until the moment that the final draft of
it was agreed. The ink was still drying on the page when the
clawback had already begun.
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The Sinn Fein
negotiators in the Talks have always said that the Agreement
would simply herald a new phase of struggle. The first step in
that struggle is to ensure that both governments live up to what
they agreed to. The first battle will be the forthcoming
elections. Sinn Fein has asked for an electoral pact with the
SDLP which they won't get and I'm sure knew that before they
asked. But it's always polite to ask and not simply assume.
Post-elections, though, there will be a realignment of political
forces.
Those in the SDLP who never liked the close relationship between
their party leader and Gerry Adams will be in the ascendancy.
There's no need for them to bide their time any longer. They've
got their kind of peace and in the new form of politics will be
seeking class allies from the unionist persuasion. It's crucial
therefore that Sinn Fein candidates are elected to as many seats
as is possible. Only they can ensure that the minimal ground won
for nationalists in the Good Friday Agreement can be held, and
added to.
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)