Blog: Loyalist Areas Left Behind

Written by Jackie Redpath Friday, 02 September 2011 13:34

A few weeks ago in my blog (15 August) I attempted to analyse why "Protestant working class communities feel left behind". I promised to return with an "agenda" blog which would lay out how this problem should be addressed.  Well, holidays have intervened and it's not an easy call, so sorry for the delay.

First off, it's important to recognise that the recent focus on this issue, due to the July riots in East Belfast and other loyalist areas outside Belfast, is not a new thing.  Community leaders from loyalist areas for two decades now have been drawing Government's attention to the particular and peculiar problems in left behind loyalist areas.

Back in 1991 the seminal "Community Development in Protestant Areas" conference in Lisnaskea addressed the issue.  That same year the Opshal Commission were presented with evidence.  Ten years on in 2001, the PUL (Protestant / Unionist / Loyalist) Network highlighted the issues at their "Embracing the Future with Confidence" conference in Londonderry.

In 2003 a "Think Tank" initiated by David Trimble when First Minister, presented a subsequent Direct Rule Administration with papers and analysis entitled "Transforming Loyalist Communities". Initiatives such as these called for action and showed the way forward.

Indeed, there were attempts by various Administrations to recognise and act on the issue, usually in response to some intense violence in loyalist areas, aka Holy Cross (2001), Whiterock (2005) and now East Belfast (2011).  John Reid famously said it was important Northern Ireland didn't become a "cold house for Protestants". In 2003 Secretary of State Paul Murphy announced the Local Community Fund saying that "despite great progress in Northern Ireland, some people feel they have been left behind ... many in this category are from loyalist communities". Two years later Direct Rule Minister David Hanson announced "Renewing Communities", an initiative again essentially focussed on loyalist areas.

So why did these responses not make the impact we would have hoped?  First off, they came from bad politics.  Almost every initiative was a direct response to unusual levels of violence in loyalist areas, while two decades of lobbying by community leaders on the issues were effectively ignored.

Secondly, every initiative was short-term and lacked a strategic approach.

The hard truth is that there are no quick fixes and while it is acknowledged that communities need to see some immediate rewards, the long-term change needed will require long-term commitment.  It will take a generation.

If the analysis is accepted that loyalist areas feel left behind and that this needs addressed, then the response must be strategic, with clear long-term measurable goals for transformation.  The response must be systematic, working to a clear programme, in an evaluated step-by-step basis.

The programme for change must be sustained, no more "sticking plaster" approaches and it should be evidence based – we need to know it will work or adjusted if it shows not to be.  Finally it must be flexible, willing to break the mould and not simply recycle existing programmes.

These are the broad principles which should govern the process of transformation of loyalist communities.

What then are the critical elements of the transformation programme?  All the thinking of the last 20 years around this has identified common issues to be addressed in loyalist areas.

Education is at the core.  Four out of the five most educationally low achieving Wards in Northern Ireland are predominantly Protestant, six out of the worst ten and twelve out of the top twenty (NISRA Statistics 2010).  Broken down further to the educational achievement of boys in Protestant areas, the figures are even more frightening.  This is a particular and peculiar problem.

A particular focus on programmes for young people is a natural next step from this and has taken on a new urgency as paramilitaries move on post decommissioning.  Old mores will increasingly become unenforceable and there is a real danger of a new "anarchic" gang culture emerging.  We should learn from the English riots in this regard.  Not only should we reinforce progressive youth work, but we should also look at the best of the Americor volunteering concept promoting responsibility and active citizenship.  This should go beyond Protestant and working class communities.

The continuum of education and young people naturally moves on to employability.  The present recession reinforces the disadvantage of educationally low achieving Protestant young people and it is urgent that we create "intermediate labour market" schemes to provide a gateway for groups of young people into mainstream employment, again not limited to loyalist areas.

The degenerated physical environment in Protestant working class areas, with significant areas of dereliction and abandonment, is a daily "in your face" message.  Physical and environmental programmes are essential as "feel, see, touch" elements of transformation and this must include housing, so vital for the sustainability of these areas.

Ultimately there is the need for on-going conflict transformation and dealing with the legacy of the "troubles", weighing so heavily in working class areas.  In loyalist areas the plans of paramilitaries to "leave the stage" have not gone according to plan.  It is in all our interests to support their "civilisation" or spasmodic and disruptive violence will continue.

All of this needs underpinned by community development principles that recognises the primacy of the involvement of local communities in this process and allocates resources accordingly.  This is a bedrock requirement!

Finally there is politics.  The lack of an identifiable elected voice coming directly from working class Protestant communities is felt sharply and the disengagement from politics, expressed by low voter turn-out is clear.  Stormont and its Parties must reconnect to loyalist areas.  Good politics will also take a long-term view, beyond the next election and "plant trees" of which present politicians will never see the full growth.  Good politics will also move beyond "sharing out the spoils" and will recognise that what is "good for the other" is also "good for me".  This will free up the possibility of addressing the particular problems in Protestant working class areas, without an inevitable quid pro quo.  It would give form to Martin Luther King's assertion that "we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality ... whatever affects one directly affects us all indirectly". Such an assertion gives us the freedom and authority to address the issues in "left behind" loyalist areas!

Next week, I plan to address in detail the education issue and what we need to do.