1916 parade may 'hinder peace process'

THE State's forthcoming 1916 commemoration could hinder efforts to secure power-sharing in the North, two leading think tanks have warned.

The Dublin-based Action on Social Change (Tasc) and Belfast organisation Democratic Dialogue say the events of 1916 should be allowed fade into history rather than be glorified.

Adopting the latter course could create an obstacle to further progress in the peace process, the groups say.

In a joint report to be published today to coincide with the eighth anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, authors Robin Wilson and Rick Wilford warn it is not only Northern Ireland departments which have obligations under the accord.

They write of the tension between the restoration of the military parade along O'Connell Street on Easter Monday, in time for the 90th anniversary of 1916, and the contemporary aspiration to restore power-sharing in Northern Ireland.

"A more reflective consideration of 1916 would see in it both the nobility of the republican ideal and the bloodshed it could spawn," they noted.

"And it might consider that, like a sepia image of the event, it should be allowed to fade into history, rather than being airbrushed from it or being allowed to constrain the emergence of novel political arrangements, north and south."

But Taoiseach Bertie Ahern yesterday defended the commemoration.

"The Government wants Easter to be an expression of our pride in all those who took part in the Rising and subsequent War of Independence," he told RTÉ Radio. "The State has its roots in 1916. It's a red-letter day in our history.

"The volunteers of 1916 fought against overwhelming military odds to establish the Irish people's right to self-determination, and their courage and sacrifice inspired their political heirs to attain full Irish independence."

Meanwhile, Messrs Wilson and Wilford say that some reengineering of the Good Friday Agreement is necessary to ensure lasting stability for Northern Ireland.

"Specific features of the agreement have had unintended polarising effects, which have been readily exploited by those with a determined sectarian and/or paramilitary agenda," their report states.

In particular, the authors say, the agreement has endorsed the conflicting views of democracy held by unionist and national politicians.

Unionists tend to focus exclusively on democracy as popular control, or "majority rule", whereas nationalists see political equality, or "minority rights".

"In this regard, the agreement has tended to place these competing constitutional claims side by side, offering unionists the majoritarian 'consent principle' and nationalists the egalitarian 'parity of esteem'," the authors say.

They believe this has allowed the conflict to be pursued "if anything with more alacrity than before" - albeit with less violence.

Their report sets out an agenda for reform which, they say, would preserve the agreement's key principles of power-sharing devolution, civic participation and equality and human rights while reforming the constitutional context so as to be more conducive to their realisation.