IN a state which has the consent of the vast majority of citizens, the system of law and order is a common transcendent authority.
All citizens, no matter what their religious or ethnic origin, have equality before the law. The state, with the support of the majority of citizens, is able to compel compliance within its jurisdiction. It is able to suppress violence, or the threat of violence, from whatever source it comes.
In Northern Ireland there has never been a "normal" order like this when it has come to politically motivated violence, ie. violence related to the nature of the state or the relationship between the two communities.
The monopolisation of order and justice by the state, which we associate with "normal" societies, did not happen in the North. British power was never sufficient to impose an end to sectarian conflict and create impartial law and order. The British state, in attempting to suppress violence, found itself relying on unionists for support and legitimacy.
The situation became more acute from the mid-19th century as conflict escalated between the Irish nationalist movement and Britain, on the one hand, and between unionist and nationalist in north-east Ulster on the other. Thus, the normal historical position of British power had been that of supporting unionist against nationalist. The important consequence is that the two communities have had different relationships to the state and the justice system.
Unionists came to expect that the British state would support them because they were loyal citizens. While this was the expectation, British support could never be completely relied on and defiance might be required to show there were significant limits to unionist compliance with the British state (1912, Ulster Workers' Strike, Drumcree) and that British rule was ultimately dependent on unionist support. Unionists saw nationalists as disloyal, a threat to their way of life, requiring vigilance and needing to be deterred from making trouble.
Nationalist experience was that a British state would not be even- handed between the two communities and, in the end, would always do what the unionists wanted. They felt unionists would never accept equality and share power. Resistance was necessary, as was support from the rest of the island. Thus, between the two communities there is a mutual fear- threat relationship.
The capacity of the Orange Order to parade through most of the public space symbolised and expressed the power relations in that part of the British state and the security of the unionist community's position.
The right to march is linked with continuing "Britishness"; abandoning the tradition represents an abandonment of "Britishness" and a triumph for "Irishness".
OF COURSE, the nationalist community does not see it this way; it sees Orange parades as an exercise in triumphalism and domination in a context where they do not have full marching rights.
Marching, and the reaction to it, symbolises the fight for being - the rivalry between the two communities. Thus, confrontations over marches are vested with profound symbolic and practical significance.
The relationship between the two communities is becoming more evenly balanced. What this means, in the context of the fear relationship, is that rivalry increases and becomes more intense. This is symbolised by the conflict over parades.
Consideration of the issue of parades needs to be approached in an awareness that this is an issue which has gone to the heart of the British state in Ireland (and subsequently the North), of the law and justice system, and of the fear-threat relationship between the two communities. Because we are talking about the control of the public space in the North, this issue has the potential for enormous conflict (as was seen in July 1996). The operation of law in this area can be overturned by brute force, or its threat. Authority is always at risk in the public space in a contested society, and the limitation of that authority can be cruelly exposed.
For these reasons marching conflicts are unlikely to be resolved by local agreement.
We should be looking for ways to diminish the fear-threat relationship. Part of that is to create a real peace process in which partners are found across the divide and where the two governments work together and give guarantees to both communities. Fundamentally, we are looking for new relationships between the communities and new political arrangements which will bring them into the same relationship with the law and justice system. The challenge is to face reality and develop new relationships.
Dr David Stevens is general secretary of the Irish Council of Churches.
