`New' unionism scarcely conceals reality of the old Orange bigotry

Every time I write about the sad siege mentality of Ireland's unionist minority I am rewarded with a bellicose note from someone called Sam. It appears that I know nothing about "positive unionism", about the "genuine" reasons for loyalist hostility to nationalists and about the coherent and rational ideology which underpins Protestantism in the North.

I smile at these messages in orange bottles before filing them in the bin. But a couple of weeks ago a much longer version of Sam's gospel landed on my desk from another source, a new book entitled Ulster Loyalism And The British Media. It transpires that this is an edited and updated version of a doctoral thesis by Alan Parkinson, a lecturer at London's South Bank University.

One of the insistent themes of Dr Parkinson's treatise is that all the media have misrepresented unionists for the past 30 years. They have portrayed only "negative" and "harsh images" of unionism, such as "strutting Orangemen, the perennially fiery Democratic Unionist leader Ian Paisley and intimidatory strike-organisers".

So "public opinion in Britain has never been highly sympathetic to the unionist case" because of this misconceived view of its adherents created largely by the media. Well, I never. This must mean that hidden behind this false image of provocative Orange marchers, the demagogic Paisley etc. is a "real" unionism that is "soft" and "positive" and maybe even lovable, which has been desperate to find an accommodation with nationalism. Where, I wondered, could this be? Luckily, I was able to ask Dr Parkinson during a radio debate if he could point me in the direction of this hitherto secret branch of loyalism.

He grasped at the straw of the so-called new unionism of David Trimble, leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, and the moderates in his party who have supported him during the talks which led to the Belfast Agreement. Given that his thesis predated the beginning of those talks by some years, this was an unconvincing response. It is even less so as we hear the new unionists offering support to the unreconstructed Orange throng at Drumcree.

The truth is that Dr Parkinson and his ilk cannot face the fact that the so-called perception of unionism is indeed reality. He laments the media's selection of "intransigent unionist politicians and shadowy paramilitary spokesmen" as the sole representatives of loyalism. But anyone who has seen any television documentary in which a reporter has set out to obtain the views of the people, whether in the unionist housing estates of Belfast or among the rural Protestant population, cannot help but notice that the people are, if anything, more uncompromising than their elected politicians.

Dr Parkinson is clearly upset about the media's knee-jerk use of "the Ian Paisley stereotype" as an illustration of unionism. But what are journalists supposed to do? Ignore him? When I first visited Belfast in 1968 the London Daily Mail's then correspondent confided that, like him or not, Paisley was the foremost articulator of the unionist cause and therefore "the province's most powerful politician". I ignored this wise advice at the time because, like many untutored observers, I thought Paisley far too eccentric to be influential.

What I didn't realise at the time was just how effective Paisley had been in previous years at foiling all the attempts by the Stormont government to introduce reforms. In the years leading up to the civil rights protests Paisley thwarted several attempts by unionism to reject sectarianism and, in so doing, provide political and social reforms on behalf of the nationalist population.

It is surely significant that the newest loyalist party, Bob McCartney's UK Unionists, has gradually adopted the agenda of Paisley's Democratic Unionists so that there is hardly a scintilla of difference between them.

The crucial importance of this link should be noted by those who urge us to applaud the alleged emergence of new unionism. McCartney's support comes largely from the "respectable" middle classes who have traditionally turned their backs on Paisley. In other words, Dr Parkinson, there are signs that unionism is, if anything, more intransigent than it has been.

How do we square this with the vote for Trimble and his agreement to share power with nationalists? The answer, I'm afraid, is that this spirit of togetherness is going to be a short-run phenomenon. As my old Daily Mail colleague said: "Watch Paisley". He is unionism's soul and that isn't perception. It is, sadly, the awful reality.