Sir, - Having been brought up as a Protestant in the Republic, and having lived in England for 10 years, I found that Ruth Dudley Edwards's timely contribution resonates strongly (Opinion, June 29th). But I am sure she would be the first to admit that she has been compelled to sacrifice historical complexity to journalistic directness.
For much of this century the conduct of public policy in Britain and Ireland has been characterised by a striking contrast between the constitutional structure and political process in each country. In Britain the key constitutional features comprise the absence of a written constitution, the hereditary principle underpinning the (unwritten) constitution and part of the legislature, an inadequate separation of powers, an unrepresentative voting system and the continuing search for an international role in the absence of an empire. However, this has not prevented the emergence of a reasonably effective and representative political process.
Since 1937, Ireland has enjoyed an effective constitutional structure, with power derived, in theory, from the people, and a proportional system of voting. But this did not prevent commercial life being riddled by cronyism and corruption, however benign its intent. Nor did it prevent the political process being rendered sterile and neutered by the frequent undemocratic spasms of the "slightly constitutional" Fianna Fail party, by latent irredentism, by the cultural sectarianism practised by the Gaelic Athletic Association and by the pernicious social and political control exercised by the Roman Catholic Church.
These contrasting political cultures clashed bloodily in the fractured and inherently unworkable political entity that is Northern Ireland.
But the past, fortunately, is another country. In the past decade the political and economic process in Ireland has been transformed almost beyond recognition; the chains that bound it have been largely swept away. In Britain there is an all-powerful Labour government whose zeal in reforming the constitution sometimes overrides the necessity of thinking through the implications fully. The political, constitutional and judicial contortions performed to provide a measure of legitimacy to the emerging arrangements in Northern Ireland place potentially unsustainable pressures on the development of constitutional arrangements in Britain. There is an urgent need for "joined-up" constitutional thinking.
Traditionally the allegiance of Ulster Unionism has been to the power that would guarantee the protection of its civil and religious liberties. Unfortunately, for more than a century, the desire to protect these liberties has been conflated with the preservation of economic and political supremacy; and, until 1972, the UK government was prepared to support the achievement of both of these aims. Unionism needs to recognise, and act on, two salient features of the current situation. The first is the fragility of constitutional guarantees in the context of major (and uncertain) constitutional reform in the UK. The second is, perhaps, more important that the recent transformation in the Republic provides an opportunity both to validate and protect its civil and religious liberties and to exploit its political and economic capabilities.
It would be tragic if the arrangements being implemented in Northern Ireland constrain the evident convergence of the constitutional structures and political processes in these islands. There is a risk of sowing the seeds of future conflict and retarding the emergence of soundly-based peace and prosperity on both islands. Constitutional arrangements may be viewed as inherently boring; but they provide the framework in which the prejudices identified by Ruth Dudley Edwards will either thrive or decay. - Yours, etc., Paul Hunt,
Queens Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, England.