Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Pragmatists versus dogmatists: Explaining the failure of power-sharing in Northern Ireland during the 1970s

  • Original Article
  • Published:
British Politics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article argues that the failure of Northern Ireland’s first power-sharing executive, and subsequent attempts to restore power-sharing during the 1970s, was the result of conflicting attitudes towards devolution among Northern Ireland’s politicians. Traditional ideological divisions between nationalists and unionists were not the primary barrier to creating and sustaining cross-community institutions, as stressed in accounts of this period premised on consociational theory. Drawing extensively from archival sources, it argues that the split between the pragmatists from both communities, who were prepared to compromise their core principles and accept power-sharing devolution within a UK framework, and the dogmatists (both nationalists and unionists) who refused to contemplate any compromise to their core position, prevented a consensual political settlement emerging during the 1970s.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. McGarry and O’Leary (2006) have themselves highlighted shortcomings in ‘classic consociational theory’, but are ‘critical consociationalists, not anti-consociationalists’ (pp. 249–277).

  2. Consociationalism has also been critiqued for both its conceptual fluidity and tendency to reinforce division rather than promote integration (see for example, Dixon, 2005, pp. 357–367).

  3. Alliance was, de facto, a moderate unionist party that attempted to bridge the sectarian divide. The other non-sectarian party was the Northern Ireland Labour Party, which was pro-power-sharing. However, it attracted even less support than Alliance, an average of 1.7 per cent support in all elections it contested during the 1970s, and failed to make a significant impact in debates about Northern Ireland’s future.

  4. The DUP, by contrast, was unencumbered by the UUP’s anomalous structure, and its policy was firmly under its leader, Ian Paisley’s, control (see Bruce, 2007, pp. 103–105).

  5. ARK, Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention Elections, 1975. Available from: http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/fc75.htm (accessed 1 March 2014).

  6. Faulkner had resigned as UUP leader in January 1974 having lost an Ulster Unionist Council vote on the ratification of the Sunningdale Agreement. However, he remained in post as Chief Executive until May 1974.

  7. There were suggestions, in December 1975, that Craig’s power-sharing proposals were merely tactical. He ‘still wanted the form of government advocated in the UUUC report, but was prepared to accept a voluntary coalition with SDLP for a few years in order to get it’ (see PRONI, CONV/1/ 9, Maurice Hayes to Ian Burns, 5 December 1975).

  8. The motion was opposed by John Hume (see McLoughlin, 2010, p. 82). The Southern opposition party, Fianna Fáil, called for such a declaration the previous year, thus the SDLP policy towards Irish unity was officially more moderate than that of a party in the Irish Republic, (Irish Times, 30 October 1975). Gerry Fitt chided the Fianna Fáil leader, Jack Lynch for advocating withdrawal, claiming Lynch had ‘put himself in the Provisional I.R.A. camp’ in so doing (Irish Times, 3 November 1975).

  9. Fianna Fáil’s ambiguous position towards the SDLP can be seen in their chiding of Jack Lynch for pushing the Irish dimension ‘into the background’ in 1979 (Irish Times, 23 November 1979). There was a gulf between Fianna Fáil’s rhetoric in opposition and their Northern Ireland policy in government. The Irish government’s European Court of Human Rights case against the British government regarding the torture of detainees in Northern Ireland arguably masked covert improvements in British–Irish relations, particularly security, under the 1973–1977 coalition government (Patterson, 2013). And it did not equate to a desire for British withdrawal. It was regarded by the British as an irritant, and difficult to reconcile with Dublin’s largely helpful approach on other matters (TNA, PREM 16/520, North–South security co-operation, minute by ROI department, 10 September 1975).

  10. Dickson replaced Faulkner as UPNI leader, following his untimely death in 1977.

  11. See also Bew and Patterson’s (1985, p. 99) critique of the ‘agreed Ireland’. Their critique is valid at the ideological level, but it ignores the party’s willingness to work within a UK framework.

  12. The following year a briefing note for Atkins, prepared before his meeting with US Vice-President George H.W. Bush, confirmed this was government policy. It stated that ‘The unionists would like us to revive the devolved system – with a permanent unionist majority – which prevailed for 50 years before 1972; but that we will not do, since it would be totally unacceptable to the Catholics’. Likewise, the government was ‘not prepared’ to move towards Irish unity ‘against the will of that [unionist] majority’ (see PRONI, NIO/12/197A, draft note, Vice-President Bush, 3 July 1981).

  13. For a critique, see O’Kane (2010) and Wilson (2010).

References

  • Anderson, D. (1994) 14 May Days: The Inside Story of the Loyalist Strike of 1974. Dublin, Ireland: Gill and Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aveyard, S. (2012) The ‘English disease’ is to look for a ‘solution of the Irish problem’: British constitutional policy in Northern Ireland after Sunningdale 1974–1976. Contemporary British History 26 (4): 529–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bew, P. and Patterson, H. (1985) The British State and the Ulster Crisis: From Wilson to Thatcher. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogaards, M. (2000) The uneasy relationship between empirical and normative types in consociational theory. Journal of Theoretical Politics 12 (4): 385–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogdanor, V. (2001) Devolution in the United Kingdom, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, S. (2007) Paisley: Religion and Politics in Northern Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, F. (2013) Northern Ireland: The Reluctant Peace. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, P. (2005) Why the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland is not consociational. Political Quarterly 76 (3): 357–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, R. (2003) Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, B. (1978) Memoirs of a Statesman. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisk, R. (1975) The Point of No Return: The Strike which Broke the British in Ulster. London: Deutsch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennessey, T. (2007) The Evolution of the Troubles, 1970–72. Dublin, Ireland: Irish Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennigan, A. (1977) Molyneaux blames SDLP for north violence campaign. Irish Press, 12 May.

  • Horowitz, D. (2001) The agreement: Clear, consociational and risky. In: J. McGarry (ed.) Northern Ireland and the Divided World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons Debates (1976) vol. 921, col. 35, 24 November, http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1976/nov/24/debate-on-the-address#column_35, accessed 3 March 2014.

  • Irish Times (1976) Cats and dogs. 22 January.

  • Irish Press (1976) SDLP Conference. Withdrawal call gets surprise backing but motion is defeated, 6 December.

  • Irish Times (1977) Mason’s letter to parties, 24 November.

  • Irish Times (1975) Lynch now in Provisional I.R.A. camp, says Fitt, 3 November.

  • Irish Times (1978) Protestants would be fools to join partitionist state, says FitzGerald, 3 February.

  • Irish Times (1979) Napier says drift in NI politics, 24 September.

  • Jackson, A. (2003) Home Rule: An Irish History, 1800–2000. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, E.P. (2007) The Orange Order: A Contemporary Northern Irish History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, M. (2011) The Destructors: The Story of Northern Ireland’s Lost Peace Process. Dublin, Ireland: Irish Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, M. (2005) Imposing Power-Sharing: Conflict and Co-Existence in Northern Ireland and Lebanon. Dublin, Ireland: Irish Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiely, N. (1976) Paisley lashes out at variety of targets. Irish Times 5 March.

  • Lee, J.J. (1989) Ireland 1912–1985: Politics and Society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1969) Consociational democracy. World Politics 21 (2): 207–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaid, S. (2013) Template for Peace: Northern Ireland, 1972–75. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McGarry, J. and O’Leary, B. (eds.) (1995) Explaining Northern Ireland: Broken Images. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarry, J. and O’Leary, B. (2004) The Northern Ireland Conflict: Consociational Engagements. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McGarry, J. and O’Leary, B. (2006) Consociational theory, Northern Ireland’s conflict, and its agreement. Part 1: What consociationalists can learn from Northern Ireland. Government and Opposition 41 (1): 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGlynn, C., Tonge, J. and McAuley, J. (2014) The party politics of post-devolution identity in Northern Ireland. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 16 (2): 273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrattan, C. (2010a) Learning from the past or laundering history? Consociational narratives and state intervention in Northern Ireland. British Politics 5 (1): 92–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrattan, C. (2010b) Northern Ireland 1968–2008: The Politics of Entrenchment. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McKittrick, D. (1976) SDLP and unionists agree to differ on power-sharing. Irish Times 23 July.

  • McKittrick, D. (1977a) Paisley and the power workers. Irish Times 9 May.

  • McKittrick, D. (1977b) Devolution party trick. Irish Times 5 November.

  • McKittrick, D. (1977c) SDLP insists on power-sharing. Irish Times 12 December.

  • McKittrick, D. (1979) Unionists give firm ‘no’ to Mason’s plan. Irish Times 30 January.

  • McLoughlin, P.J. (2010) John Hume and the Revision of Irish Nationalism. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, J. (2009) Devolution in the UK. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, G. (1998) John Hume and the SDLP: Impact and Survival in Northern Ireland. Dublin, Ireland: Irish Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, G. and Tonge, J. (2005) Sinn Féin and the SDLP: From Alienation to Participation. Dublin, Ireland: O’Brien.

    Google Scholar 

  • News Letter (1976) SDLP advertisement. Belfast News Letter 4 February.

  • Nolan, P. (1979) Independence would be suicide for North, says UPNI leader. Irish Times 8 August.

  • Northern Ireland Office (1974) The Northern Ireland Constitution. London: HMSO.

  • Northern Ireland Office (1975) Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention – Report of Debates (Convention Debates) (1975). Belfast, UK: HMSO.

  • O’Clery, C. (1977a) Molyneaux tars SDLP and paisley with the same brush. Irish Times 12 May.

  • O’Clery, C. (1977b) Molyneaux rebuffs Mason on devolution proposals. Irish Times 25 November.

  • O’Clery, C. (1978a) Unionists disagree in the friendliest of ways. Irish Times 23 October.

  • O’Clery, C. (1978b) Disengagement motion no more than policy updating, says Currie. Irish Times 6 November.

  • O’Connor, F. (1976) Unionists drop SDLP talks over power-sharing issue. Irish Times 7 September.

  • O’Connor, F. and Kiely, N. (1975) Convention concludes debate on proposals. Irish Times 4 October.

  • O’Connor, F. and McKittrick, D. (1975) U.U.U.C. presents proposals to the convention. Irish Times 1 October.

  • Ó Dochartaigh, N. (2011) ‘Everyone trying’, the IRA ceasefire, 1975: A missed opportunity for peace? Field Day Review 7: 50–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Duffy, B. (2007) British-Irish Relations and Northern Ireland: From Violent Politics to Conflict Regulation. Dublin, Ireland: Irish Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Kane, E. (2010) Learning from Northern Ireland? Uses and abuses of the Irish ‘model’. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 12 (2): 239–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, B. (1997) The conservative stewardship of Northern Ireland, 1979–97: Sound-bottomed contradictions or slow learning? Political Studies 45 (4): 663–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, B. (2004) The labour government and Northern Ireland, 1974–79. In: J. McGarry and B. O’Leary (eds.) The Northern Ireland Conflict: Consociational Engagements. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, H. (2013) Ireland’s Violent Frontier: The Border and Anglo-Irish Relations During the Troubles. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, H. and Kaufmann, E.P. (2007) Unionism and Orangeism in Northern Ireland Since 1945: The Decline of the Loyal Family. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rekawek, K. (2011) Irish Republican Terrorism and Politics: A Comparative Study of the Official and the Provisional IRA. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M. (1994) War & Peace in Ireland: Britain and the IRA in the New World Order. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SDLP (1972) Towards a New Ireland. Belfast, UK: SDLP.

  • SDLP (1975a) Speak With Strength. Constitutional Convention Election Manifesto, May Belfast, UK: SDLP.

  • SDLP (1975b) Proposals for Government in Northern Ireland. Report to Parliament, Belfast, UK: SDLP.

  • SDLP (1976) Partnership in Ireland, 6th Annual Conference, 3–5 December. Belfast, UK: SDLP.

  • SDLP (1977a) Facing Reality: Policy Document Presented to Seventh Annual Conference. Belfast, UK: SDLP.

  • SDLP (1977b) Know Where you Stand: SDLP Local Government Election Manifesto, May Belfast, UK: SDLP.

  • SDLP (1978) Executive Committee Statement on Ardoyne Meeting on September 10 and on Conditions in ‘H Block’. Belfast, UK: SDLP.

  • SDLP (1979a) Strengthen Your Voice: Manifesto, Westminster Election, May Belfast, UK: SDLP.

  • SDLP (1979b) Towards a New Ireland: A Policy Review. Belfast, UK: SDLP.

  • Sinn Féin Official/Northern Republican Clubs Executive (1973) Britain’s White Paper: Republican Statement and Demands for all-Ireland. Dublin/Belfast: Sinn Féin Official/Republican Clubs.

  • Tannam, E. (2001) Explaining the Good Friday agreement: A learning process. Government and Opposition 36 (4): 493–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. (1997) Provos: The IRA and Sinn Féin. London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonge, J. (2002) Northern Ireland: Conflict and Change. Harlow, UK: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • UUC (1977a) Notes on the Ulster Situation, Ulster Unionist Council. Belfast, UK: UUC.

  • UUC (1977b) The Unionist Way Ahead: A Statement of Policy. Belfast, UK: UUC.

  • UUC (1978) Security: An Analysis. Belfast, UK: UUC.

  • UUP (1972) Towards the Future: A Unionist Blueprint. Belfast, UK: UUP.

  • UUP (1979) Ulster Unionist Conference, 1979. Belfast, UK: UUP.

  • Ulster Vanguard (1973) Government without Right. Belfast, UK: Ulster Vanguard.

  • Ulster Workers’ Council (1974) UWC News Sheet, No. 15. Belfast, UK: UWC.

  • Walker, G. (2004) A History of the Ulster Unionist Party: Protest, Pragmatism and Pessimism. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, H. (1979) Final Term: Labour Government 1974–76. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R. (2010) The Northern Ireland Experience of Conflict and Agreement: A Model for Export? Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, S. (2005) Electoral systems design and power-sharing regimes. In: I. O’Flynn and D. Russell (eds.) Powersharing: New Challenges for Divided Societies. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Dr Catherine McGlynn (University of Huddersfield) for comments on an earlier draft of this article, and the anonymous readers for their valuable suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McDaid, S. Pragmatists versus dogmatists: Explaining the failure of power-sharing in Northern Ireland during the 1970s. Br Polit 11, 49–71 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/bp.2014.18

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/bp.2014.18

Keywords

Navigation