What if Ireland was British? Looking at the British and Irish news on television over recent weeks has provided a stark contrast between two nations. While the English buried a Queen with pride and decorum, Ireland sank even deeper into an almost ritual process of degradation.
What, it is only natural to ask, is the source of Ireland's debasement? Is it embedded in the Irish way of life, or has it emerged from the way Ireland is governed? Some time ago, the historian Niall Ferguson edited a book in which a number of invitees were asked to imagine how history might have been different if certain events had not taken place. The imagination of Irish historians might be well exercised if applied in a similar manner to recent Irish history. The obvious question is: what sort of Ireland would we have if British rule had been maintained?
It is interesting to look at the pros and cons of this imaginary equation. First of all, it seems clear that had British rule been maintained there would have been no partition, but a United Ireland existing within the United Kingdom. It is likely that there would have been no Civil War, with its terrible cost in human lives, and the economic ruin that resulted.
With British identity maintained, the South's Protestant population would have remained undiminished and its priceless contribution of intelligence, endeavour and business acumen would have helped Ireland's economy to develop. The draining of Ireland's life-blood through emigration might well have been stemmed.
Great War dead
If British rule had been maintained, the Ireland of the 1920s and 1930s would have been vastly different. Ireland's Great War dead would have been commemorated as elsewhere in the British Isles, and the troubling refusal to grieve which marks the Irish memory of the war would not have occurred. Elsewhere, the Irish would have maintained their relationship with the British monarchy, expressed with such popular fervour in the early part of the century. Royal visits would have been a regular occurrence, and it is unlikely that the Eucharistic Congress of 1932, marking the beginnings of Catholic hegemony, would have been celebrated with such pomp and circumstance, if at all. The special relationship of Church and State enshrined in the De Valera-McQuaid constitution would not have arisen. The Catholic Church would never have been allowed to dominate the Irish psychological landscape as it has.
It is arguable that the breach with Ireland's British identity was a source of grave disruption within the Irish psyche. The constriction of identity attendant on the establishment of a new political culture was undoubtedly a factor in emerging patterns of alienation in Irish society.
The way in which the Irish State defined itself through Catholicism created widespread marginalisation. The need for censorship showed the difficulty the new State had in imposing its vision of Irish identity. It is unlikely that under British rule, Irish people would have been prevented so rigorously from mediating their national identity through art and literature. It is unlikely that the endemic exile of the nation's writers, many of them to Britain, would have taken place. The potential for national regeneration would have been enormous.
Compulsory Irish
Under British rule, Ireland would have been governed and administered very differently. The Gaelic-speaking élite who ran the country for decades would never have attained the power and privilege that they did. Nor would the precious intellectual resources of those who did not speak Irish have been so stupidly squandered by government. The sorry saga of compulsory Irish would certainly never have taken place. The Irish language might have benefited.
It is possible to imagine, in a United Ireland under British rule, that there would have been no 30-year Republican murder spree in the North and that the latest degradation which awaits the Irish - Sinn Féin in positions of power down South - would be just a bad dream rather than a bad reality.
On the other side of the imaginary equation, Ireland would of course have been a full participant in the second World War and would have suffered grievous losses as other countries did, but against this there would have been some moral pride gained in playing a part on a troubled world stage rather than remaining seated among the spectators.
Another drawback is that Sellafield might have been sited in Kinsealy, rather than Cumbria. But then, who would miss Kinsealy? In many ways it seems that the loss of British identity contributed to the economic, spiritual, artistic, moral and linguistic impoverishment of 20th-century Ireland. What is an even graver speculation however, is that the end of British rule may have given the most squalid elements in the Irish soul free rein to wreak havoc at every level of society.
The merry-go-round of iniquities that characterise our daily news bulletins paints a very bleak picture of an Ireland starved of "right government" and subject to relentless violations. Yes, it is difficult to imagine that the awful history of the abuse of innocence that has become part of the story Ireland must now tell about itself could have taken place without the Republic that engendered it.
National scandal
It is difficult to imagine that the hegemony of the Haugheys, the Lawlors and Redmonds could have operated so outrageously. And it is difficult to imagine over the past 80 years a greater despoliation of Ireland's human, economic and cultural capital than that visited on it by the farce and the futility that is the Republic. More and more, the establishment of the State seems like a national catastrophe that has become a national scandal.
Of course, no one can tell how things might have been under British rule. And imagination cannot provide a lasting escape from present-day humiliations even in the most obtuse of imagined scenarios. Only one thing is certain. If the British were in charge and engaged in robbing and abusing us, that at least would make some kind of sense. Being robbed and abused by our own, that makes no sense at all. All it does is add insult to injury.