Result reflected extent of polarisation

EUROPEAN ELECTIONS: THE BRITISH government regarded the outcome of the first direct European elections in Northern Ireland as…

EUROPEAN ELECTIONS:THE BRITISH government regarded the outcome of the first direct European elections in Northern Ireland as reflecting the extent of polarisation in the region and dealing a fatal blow to hopes of consensus politics.

In an analysis of the results for the British government, dated June 26th, 1979, Mr A E Huckle, an Northern Ireland Office official, felt that the results – which put Ian Paisley top the poll for the DUP, followed by the SDLP’s deputy leader John Hume – revealed “a positive shift towards the extremes within both the Unionist and non-Unionist blocs”. For the first time, the Ulster Unionist Party was forced to cede its position of dominance to the DUP which received nearly 30 per cent of the first preference vote.

The SDLP, he wrote, had increased their share of the vote to 24.5 per cent, confirming their claim to be the representatives of the minority community.

The official speculated on how Dr Paisley might use his enhanced electoral mandate. “The DUP are riding high and Paisley reflected this when he sent a telegram to the prime minister demanding a meeting as the undisputed ‘leader of Ulster’ . . . Always regarded as a negative politician in the past, more ready to criticise than propose, for the first time he has been forced out into the open with full electoral backing. To that extent he is exposed and may be vulnerable.

READ MORE

“There have been various schools of thought about whether Paisley wants power and whether he would be prepared to obtain it by constructive statesmanship, or whether he would merely continue to build on his reputation as the defender of the Loyalist Protestant tradition ready to resist any sign of appeasement by the government . . . ”

Huckle noted that to pursue this policy Paisley had merely to maintain his attack on the government’s security policy. It was possible, however, that he might pursue his party’s commitment to the return of devolved government in the North.

“It is possible that his bombast will lead him to demand full majority rule devolution and, failing that, independence. To that extent he would be taking on the British government . . . and the Secretary of State’s obvious course would be to expose him and weaken his position by a failure similar to the failure of the [Paisley-led] UUAC strike in 1977.”

However, he felt that the government’s position would be different if Paisley adopted a more reasonable approach by advocating “a system of devolved government that had sufficient checks and balances to protect the position of the minority”.

John Hume’s success, on the other hand, meant that the SDLP remained an important factor in the political process. According to the official, the SDLP believed that “they have attained a dominant bargaining position and that they have a power of veto over any solution which is not acceptable to them”.

The party would certainly resist any attempt to restore powers to district councils, as demanded by unionists.

Meanwhile, the UUP was in disarray in the wake of its poor showing in the elections. A major problem was that more than 55 per cent of UUP supporters were over fifty years old.