Political Discourse and Conflict Resolution

Debating Peace in Northern Ireland

Katy Hayward, Catherine O'Donnell

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2010
• eBook ISBN: 9781136906077
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Military & Maritime History
• Index: History

This book offers new insights into the close relationship between political discourses and conflict resolution through critical analysis of the role of discursive change in a peace process.

Just as a peace process has many dimensions and stakeholders, so the discourses considered here come from a wide range of sources and actors. The book contains in-depth analyses of official discourses used to present the peace process, the discourses of political party leaders engaging (or otherwise) with it, the discourses of community-level activists responding to it, and the discourses of the media and the academy commenting on it. These discourses reflect varying levels of support for the peace process – from obstruction to promotion – and the role of language in moving across this spectrum according to issue and occasion. Common to all these analyses is the conviction that the language used by political protagonists and cultural stakeholders has a profound effect on progression towards peace.

Bringing together leading experts on Northern Ireland's peace process from a range of academic disciplines, including political science, sociology, linguistics, history, geography, law, and peace studies, this book offers new insights into the discursive dynamics of violent political conflict and its resolution.

1
Introduction

Political discourse and conflict resolution

Katy Hayward

This book examines discourses from a wide range of actors in Northern Ireland’s peace process – from heads of government to community workers, from former paramilitary prisoners to journalists. In doing so, we attempt to give a fair representation of the ways in which ‘conflict’ and ‘peace’ in Northern Ireland have been framed at various levels and stages – and the impact that overlap and divergence in such discourses has had. Notwithstanding this objective, I believe it necessary to introduce our work with a confession of omission; there is no chapter in this book dedicated to elaborating the perspectives of victims and narratives of victimhood. What we have scrutinised is the presentation of victims’ experiences as packaged and presented in mainstream political discourses in post-Agreement Northern Ireland.¹ In doing so, we point up our claim that it is political discourses that prevail in a process of conflict resolution. Yet, although we have found this predominance of political discourses in a peace process to be true, and (to a degree) necessary and even effective, this does not preclude us from acknowledging that it is neither adequate nor ideal.

In Northern Ireland, public wariness at airing the un-tempered views of people for whom the repercussions of conflict are a daily trauma has increased over the course of the peace process, despite the tireless work of organisations dedicated to redressing the marginalisation of victims. One such group was the Consultative Group on the Past, chaired by Robin Eames and Denis Bradley, which was established ‘to find a way forward out of the shadows of the past’ (2009: 14). Eames and Bradley describe being ‘overwhelmed with the level of engagement’ in this mission from across Northern Ireland – a fact that, they note, serves to highlight ‘the depth of hurt and suspicion that still lingers in every part of our society’. Before turning to the task of outlining recommendations, Eames and Bradley (2009: 10) prefaced their Report with the maxim: ‘Debate and discussion are healthy for any society emerging from years of violence and conflict.’

In a scenario heavy-laden with irony, the public launch of this Report was a volatile affair. Although not as exclusive as many pivotal events in the peace process, ordinary people directly affected by the recommendations of the Group felt only able to made their points by standing outside the venue of the launch with placards, by heckling others at the event, or by standing in front of the stage set for the venerable speakers. The face-to-face confrontation of two individuals became the focus of the media mêlée: a woman and a man, a Protestant and a Catholic, an orphaned daughter and a bereaved brother. As their two worlds clashed under the glare of the press, it became clear that no one around them, in an apt microcosm of Northern Ireland society, knew how to respond to the articulation of such raw anger.

It is easier, more predictable, less raucous to put responsibility for voicing victimhood into the hands of lawyers, courageous community workers or carefully picked representatives than to let victims speak for themselves. The insight and candour forged by grief and tragedy cuts through the niceties and norms of political conflict management. What is more, the rippling implications of the vocal expression of anger and pain have no clear boundaries or endpoints. This sits uneasily with the need for order and progress in a peace process; more devastatingly, it implies that the goal of reaching a ‘resolution’ to conflict becomes less attainable the more we listen.

The place for political discourse in conflict resolution

In setting out this book on the relationship between discourse, conflict and peace, we are seeking to uncover a realm of conflict resolution that is rarely critiqued yet familiar to all (media coverage of political statements, for example, constitute a staple in the rote of a peace process). We want to examine the choice of language used by various actors and its possible effects on transition from violent conflict. By identifying the vital dynamic of ‘debating peace’ in transition from conflict, we hope to counter the impression (as provocatively suggested above) that peace can only be preserved at a cost to open and challenging public discussion.² The grounds for this analysis are set out here.

First, conflict resolution is not a goal nor, indeed, a tightrope; establishing lasting patterns of peaceful interaction and ‘normalised’ channels of trust and legitimacy must ultimately be an inclusive and continually evolving process. We acknowledge that the concept itself is, somewhat ironically, a contested notion. In choosing to use this term, we do not seek to make any particular claims with regards to superior insights into processes of transition as compared with, say, those of ‘conflict transformation’. Rather, we subscribe to the assessment of renowned experts that the field of conflict resolution is necessarily broad and usefully inclusive (Ramsbotham et al. 2005: 8–9). This is not to say that we do not use this term with great caution. We share a profound critical unease with the implied conviction that conflict can be definitively resolved.³ Agree it; solve it; end it; peace. As is expounded with great clarity in the concluding chapter of this book by Little (Chapter 14), a rejection of this particular interpretation of conflict resolution arises not merely from scholarly semantics but from lived experience in countries labelled as ‘post-Agreement’ or ‘post-conflict’. To borrow a cliché, what we wish to show is that it is not the destination but the journey that is important in the process of conflict resolution.

One of the few unimpeachable principles of conflict resolution is that it must incorporate all society, not just those with political influence or acumen. Indeed, the concept of conflict resolution is often conscientiously applied to processes outside the realm of political activity (see, for example, Arai 2009). However, it is our intention to highlight the relevance of the insights provided by theorists of conflict resolution to this ‘politicised’ sphere. We do not believe that this principle is incompatible with a focus on political discourse. On the contrary, we seek to show that, just as it can exacerbate conflict, so political discourse can play a crucial role in facilitating peace. We define political discourse broadly – not by its context or speaker but in terms of its use, i.e. language that performs the social function of defining collective identities, legitimate hegemony and motivating values which find expression in political associations and goals (see also Chilton 2004; Chilton and Schäffner 2002; Wodak 2009).

Our premise is that, in a context of conflict and transition from conflict, such political utilisation of language is particularly prevalent and crucial. If politics is about bargaining, persuasion, communication and co-operation, it is one of the most important uses of discourse in the social world. These discursive features of political activity are especially fraught in a context of societal division. This is not least because a conflict situation confers even greater political weight on ideology and identity (both discursively constructed). For such reasons, political language plays a crucial role in the transition out of conflict (Schäffner and Wenden 1999).

We should pause to acknowledge here that silence is as necessary for peace as speech, and the importance of having opportunities to choose both must not be overlooked. A healthy process of conflict resolution, however, needs to ensure that silence is not imposed on some and, moreover, that the views of those most weakened or marginalised in the conflict are not expressed solely through those who dominate the public sphere. The shock of images from the launch of the Eames–Bradley Report was not a response to the views expressed so much as astonishment that it was victims themselves who were voicing them under the media glare. Such deep-rooted grievance has been commodified for political ends in the peace process; although the context and means of communication have changed, it is notable that the act of assimilating victimhood into political goals is not dissimilar to experience during the Troubles.

Political discourse: power and principle

The significance of discourse in socio-political terms relates to the fact that it may be used to legitimise, accompany, disguise or substitute for change in political values and activity. These various possibilities point directly to what is simultaneously the greatest strength and the greatest difficulty of discourse as a topic of study: its enigmatic relationship with practice and context. Indeed, according to Fairclough (2001), the term ‘discourse’ refers to each of three levels of the social world – language/text, practice/interaction and context – and, importantly, the connections between them.⁴ It is precisely because of this acknowledged complexity that analysing discourses can provide some insight into the processes involved in exacerbating conflict and facilitating peace. It is possible to identify two crucial dimensions to the role of discourse in relation to ‘small “p” politics’ that have been of particular relevance to the peace process in Northern Ireland. The use of language in relation to power and in shaping principles is essential to any process of conflict resolution.

Power: politics as discursive action

Put simply, ‘the language of politics is the language of power’ (de Landtsheer 1998: 3). Politics affects the way people think about, communicate regarding, and act in relation to social conditions and facts. For this reason, Laclau and Mouffe (1985) designate all social systems to be inherently political constructions. More particularly, as Howarth (1998: 275) claims, ‘political practices serve to constitute (and undermine) discourses and the identities they form’. The relationship between the changing political world and the language used to describe and appraise it, or between conception and action, is close and crucial (Skinner 1989: 6). The changing relationships of power that characterise the transition from conflict to peace (or vice versa) are, to a degree, the manifestation of the discourses of political actors. I note in particular that the subject (speaker of the text, in this case usually a politician) seeks to manipulate the potential of the discursive text to affect the other two realms of practice and context as much as to reflect them.

It is accepted that political constitutions, laws and norms reflect dominant discourses, namely the language/ideology of those in society who hold the reins of structural power (see Foucault 1972; Bourdieu 1991). The greater the actor’s power, or capacity to change the socio-political and structural environment, the more the actor’s discourse is likely to affect the wider context for public interaction. Put differently, the power of an actor is related to the strength of the effect of a text of his/ her words on individual or group behaviour and experience. This is most obvious when considering official discourses (i.e. the language used by actors as representatives of the government or state), as has been done by O’Donnell (Chapter 3) and Edwards (Chapter 4) in relation to the Irish and British governments during the Troubles and peace process, and O’Kane (Chapter 12) and McGovern (Chapter 13) when considering the retrospective presentation of the self-same Troubles and peace process abroad. By having the capacity to shape the rules governing the production and reception of discourse in the public sphere, such actors are able to manage the interpretation (and, in effect, the meaning) of political discourses (for analysis of this effect, see Haidar and Rodriguez 1999). Analyses of the discourses of political parties, community representatives and former paramilitaries in Northern Ireland contained in this book reveal the importance of the concept of power in discourses from a range of groups directly involved in conflict and its resolution.

Principle: discourse as political action

Discourse is ‘socially constitutive’ (Wodak et al. 1999: 8). It generates and produces social conditions, maintains, legitimates and reproduces them. On account of this, Ball et al. (1989: 2) have designated conceptual change to be ‘a species of political innovation’. Because conceptual change attends any reconstitution of the political world, political change and conceptual change must be understood as one complex and interrelated process (Farr 1989: 30–32). Moreover, a key element of discourse theory is the notion that actors/agents and systems/structures in the social and political realm ‘undergo constant historical and social change’ (Howarth and Stavrakakis 2000: 6). Discourse is central to this process of change and, importantly, to creating the impression of stability through its role in bringing together concepts, interaction and context. There needs to be movement in all three realms for real change to take place. However, again, this depends on the power and influence of the speaker of the text and, crucially, its reporting in the public realm. The role of the media, particularly local printed media, in Northern Ireland is acknowledged throughout this book.

The closer a text appears to relate to/address individual citizens’ experience of social conditions and their interpretation of them, the more influence it will have. This is because of the congruity (as noted above) between dynamics of interpretation and production. More broadly, there needs to be a certain consistency and logic in the relationship between text, practice and context as put forward by the speaker. This can be ‘explained’ through the ideology maintained by political parties (among other communal/elite actors) ...

Table of contents

• Routledge Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution
• Contents
• Contributors
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Constructing legitimacy in political discourse in the early phase of the Troubles
• 3 Finding consensus
• 4 Interpreting New Labour’s political discourse on the peace process
• 5 Discourse worlds in Northern Ireland
• 6 ‘Humespeak’
• 7 DUP discourses on violence and their impact on the peace process
• 8 The old order changeth – or not?
• 9 Continuity and change in the discourse of republican former prisoners
• 10 Imagining ‘a shared future’
• 11 Sectarian demography
• 12 ‘From Belfast to Baghdad …’?
• 13 ‘The IRA are not Al-Qaeda’1
• 14 Debating peace and conflict in Northern Ireland
• Select bibliography
• Index