REFLECTIONS ON 5TH ANNIVERSARY OF JOHN HUME’S DEATH
Mark Durkan, Former Deputy First Minister and MP for Foyle.
Having worked for and with him, I get asked in different ways about how John Hume might respond to current events. On the fifth anniversary of John’s death, renewed appreciation of his transformative achievement might allow some appraisal of any applicable relevance of his political ethic and method for addressing the appalling situation in the Middle East.
In response to doubts, frustration and the emotional impact of atrocious events, John Hume would revert to “If the underlying problem has not changed then the underlying solution has not changed”. He would stress that the dimensions of the problem had to be at least matched by the dimensions of any purported solution.
Hume looked at problems through two lenses – rights and relationships. He also applied the light of responsibility to better discern salient issues and duties – both moral and legal – of agency. He used the line “you cannot be reconciled with someone whose boot is on your neck” to stress the essential requirement for the protection of rights, equal human dignity and respect for difference. John would also allude to the maxim from Olof Palme that we cannot really be secure against each other, we can only achieve true security with each other.
Such ethical instincts would, I believe, have guided (in his thinking prime) John Hume’s empathy, analysis and laser logic if looking at the dire suffering of Palestine today. Like others, he cautioned against superficially equating different situations and conditions of conflict but he would cite some comparable precepts.
I think that John’s strong lines on the global community’s obligations of human solidarity and international law against Apartheid in South Africa would be amplified in the current context. (Kader Asmal acclaimed Hume’s ground-breaking justification of sanctions against Apartheid South Africa as not just means of marking moral distance and/or trying to exert some economic leverage but also to manifest solidarity with the struggle for democracy in South Africa).
If “the underlying solution that has not changed” in the Middle East is a ‘two-state solution’, would that not have better chance of advancement if there was more semblance of a two-state process?
The Hume-promoted schema for our peace process saw negotiations convened by both governments, deliberately inclusive of all parties, in an absence of violence, framed on three institutional strands, also addressing rights, equality and the valid democratic contest of legitimate constitutional preferences. That delivered an agreed outcome which spanned all those ambits even though different parties had statedly rejected various inherent premises.
It might be observed from Irish experience that qualitative “givens” of a diplomatically desired solution gain better prospect of agreed outcome if they are insinuated as working givens of the negotiating process. John knew the folly of parties turning objectives into their preconditions. However, he strongly canvassed the conditioning value for dialogue of key affirmations by duly involved governments and authoritative indications from other international actors. Lateral interests leaning in supportively with valid, balanced and principled influence proved to be beneficent even though their motivation or modes were rejected or resented by given parties.
John Hume’s dictum “The framework of the problem has to be matched by the framework for a solution” could usefully extend to include “the framework of the process”. This can provide a distinctive accent on Ireland’s cogent rationale for state recognition. It might be commended to a UK Government which claims party credit for our Agreement. Recognising the State of Palestine is one way of other states leaning in to underscore a fundamental premise for a solution rooted in international law.
Many tributes after John’s death on 3 August 2020 recognised a resilient single-mindednes. Both in repudiation of violence from any source and steadfast pursuit of political developments which could bring us out of the deepening rut of division and destructive conflict. However, John never really saw his work of leadership towards dialogue and agreement as a single-handed role or achievement.
His Nobel Prize acceptance speech paid tribute to other party leaderships, both governments (successive administrations), US and EU support and the people’s resilience. This showed an ethic that believed in the efficacy of dialogue and the value of inclusion underpinned by the compelling assertion of rights.
That generous acknowledgement understandably sidestepped the frustrating and tragic reality that many of those parties had persistently repudiated his analysis of the “three sets of relationships”; rejected his regard to the equal legitimacy of Nationalist and Unionist aspirations; dismissed the value or validity of signal engagement between two Governments; and/or resisted concepts around institutional democratic partnership and North-South political cooperation.
All of these precepts (plus more that Hume had long espoused) were framed into the Good Friday Agreement. Stones that wreckers had rejected from the builder had become the cornerstones. The Agreement was capstoned by its overwhelming ratification in island-wide referendums: the form of articulated self-determination conceived by John Hume to endorse a model of agreed Ireland model that could allow further democratic change.
The Belfast Agreement embodies much more than a few days’ word-craft from “the hand of history” in April 1998. It compacted layers of understanding achieved in many earlier initiatives, events or efforts (including some tagged “failed” in media commentary). Indeed more of its text is upcycled from earlier process drafts, previous documents or formal declarations than is often acknowledged.
Perhaps in Beckett’s spirit of “Try again. Fail again. Fail better”, numerous hands and strands should be credited for such milestones. Not for today a cast and credits list for such as Sunningdale, New Ireland Forum, Anglo-Irish Agreement, Hume-Adams dialogue/papers, Brooke/Mayhew Talks, Downing Street Declaration, Forum for Peace & Reconciliation, Frameworks Document, Mitchell Principles, Ground Rules (renegotiated) for Multi-Party Talks etc.
The single common determinator in all these (and more) was John Hume. His long pathfinding mission that entailed close collaboration with successive governments and serious engagement with his political counterparts also personally cultivated influential US involvements and harnessed EU relevance and effectiveness.
That knack of purposeful partnership and productive rapport with with other political and diplomatic players can be overlooked in some appraisals of his singular contribution. It was interactive as well as iterative. His constancy of robust analysis did allow for adjustment or refinement of argument, hearing other takes and refiling his ordered ideas. No account could exaggerate the partnership importance of Pat Hume – an alchemist of optimism – to John’s famous “stickability”.
Scanning today’s wider political domain, it would be hard to speculate how a leader who used to warn us about the risks of “falling into reacting to reaction” might cope in an age where ‘prejudigital’ political communication sets agendas and narrows debate. A Denis Lehane line observes that people like sides, not subtleties. John Hume could both address sides and express subtleties in a way that few could match. If infective invective sets the heat and beat of polarising exchange rather than respectful, cooler, logical challenge such signal leadership as John Hume’s will struggle for traction in what still passes for public discourse.