Political perspectives

The meaning of the border is inescapably tied to wider conflicting views about the histories that shaped the creation of Northern Ireland and what is, or should be, the most legitimate and appropriate political organisation of the island. For some people the border it is a reassuring barrier and for others an unnatural wound.

From a nationalist perspective the border is the outcome of a political division that violated the ideal of the all-island Irish nation-state and followed centuries of colonial oppression. The border destroys the ancient and geographical integrity of the nation whose coasts form its natural boundaries. Its imposition disregarded the wishes of the Irish people in favour of appeasing unionist demands for maintaining the Union of Ireland Britain and Ireland. The border would cease to exist in the ideal scenario of re-unification.

From a unionist perspective the border contains a political unit whose existence stems from the rightful desire of Ulster Protestants to remain within the United Kingdom. The creation of the Northern Ireland and its border respect the regional distinctiveness of Ulster, the deep historical connections between Ulster and Great Britain and the loyalties and identities of Protestant British people in Ulster. The distinctive industrial economy of the Belfast region and its imperial connections added to the case for the border as a protective barrier between Northern Ireland and the poverty, backwardness and ‘Popery’ of the Free State.

However, the border is not always the focus of attention from these most starkly polarised positions. Yet, as is often the case in relation to the conflict over Northern Ireland, less overtly political perspectives can be interpreted as being fundamentally political. This means that work to encourage cross-border co-operation can be interpreted as moves towards reunification by stealth; reducing the border’s status as a barrier to contact, connection and co-operation can be seen as effectively removing the border itself.

Similarly accounts of the problems created by the border can be taken to be nationalist in orientation even through these problems have affected all borderland people regardless of political affiliation and religious and cultural identities. This has meant that it has been difficult for Protestant people living near the border to point to the problems it has created since this would seem to be disloyal to the unionist commitment to the existence of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. These two polarised positions also do not capture the complexities, differences and changing perspectives within the broad categories of nationalism or unionism at the time of the border’s creation nor more recently.

For Ulster unionists outside the new North Ireland, in Co. Donegal and Co. Monaghan especially, partition, left them isolated, abandoned and stranded on the wrong side of the border. In addition, while the official position of the Irish state until the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 has been to ultimately achieve reunification, the effort of the newly formed state to establish itself in terms of the practical as well as symbolic organisation of its territory – especially by establishing the custom barrier, has had the effect of strengthening the border. Perspectives on the border do not always fall neatly into the categories of Catholic-Nationalist or Protestant-Unionist. For while the tension, fear and suspicion created by Troubles divided formerly relatively harmoniously mixed communities in the borderlands, the border has also created unexpected differences and commonalities. In some cases it has led to tension between Catholics in Northern Ireland and Catholics in Ireland who see the border as a security barrier between them and the ‘Black North’ and blame Catholics in Northern Ireland for the impacts of the Troubles in the southern border counties.

Similarly, new cross-border contact between Protestants in Northern Ireland and those across the border in Co. Donegal has revealed differences in perspectives on the border and on Protestant identities. In contrast, the experience of borderland life and the frustration about the lack of understanding about it away from the border is shared by those living in the border counties regardless of religion or political affiliations. Nor do these two perspectives on the border do justice to recent attempts to rethink territory, belonging and identity on the island and to envision political arrangements based on respect for different allegiances and identities and senses of shared concerns and interconnections. The present and future political meaning and status of the border is both a matter of the high level working of governments and the work of dealing with the border on the ground. While practical efforts to deal with the problems of the border point to new political possibilities stemming from the recognition of shared interests and the complexity of identities, contemporary political perspectives on the border are deeply entangled with the developments that shaped and stem from the Good Friday Agreement of 1998.

Cross-border cooperation was envisaged in that Agreement, and supported by the US and EU, as a way of fostering peace and reconciliation and enhancing the economy of the island as a whole. Even if practical achievements have been limited and constrained by political instability and lack of sustained support, the idea of cross-border co-operation is now a familiar element of political discussion and policy making. While this is a remarkable development, as others have argued, attitudes to cross-border cooperation remain shaped by wider political strategies and insecurities even if old entrenched political positions –  protecting or eliminating the border – have softened.

The nature of the border and its status as a political barrier is not a matter of politics alone. The Irish border is shaped by wider developments within the EU and further a field; moves to diminish borders within the EU affect the Irish border, and national and global economic change shapes the conditions of life on either side.