Unionist Divisions, The Onset Of The Northern Ireland Conflict, And ‘Pressures On O'neill’ Reconsidered

Explaining the Emergence Process of the Civil Rights Protest in Northern Ireland (1945–1968): Insights from a Relational Social Movement Approach1

“…In September 1966, a dozen UUP back‐benchers, organised by Desmond Boal, challenged the legitimacy of the Prime Minister signing a petition against his policy and to what they saw as his inability to unite the party and the unionist community ( Belfast Telegraph , 23 September 1966). In particular, western and border Unionist elites were opposed to O'Neill's modernism; they were afraid of losing control of their areas and ultimately of the ability of Northern Ireland to be effectively governed (Peatling 2007). But indecisiveness and a lack of courage to strike predominated, this in turn left room for action by the Reverend Ian Paisley, 29 who promoted an ultra‐Protestant Loyalist political agenda, suitable for that strata of the unionist community which “either experienced unemployment or faced the threat of it” (Walker 2004: 158).…”

“…The incapacity of O'Neill to deliver the reforms the regime promised, as he feared jeopardising the UUP power in front of the emerging division inside Unionism (Bew et al. 2002; Walker 2004; Peatling 2007), caused considerable frustration and resentment within the nationalist community. This rendered even more insupportable the current unjust system which tended to support only the unionists, and progressively “made the regime vulnerable to allegations of hypocrisy” (Maney 2007: 16).…”

“…5 5 While my criticism here is focused on the deficit of the social movement theory of sustained direct and indirect interaction relations, I would add that the literature on the CRM, as well as the Northern Ireland political discourse more broadly, is prevalently single‐subject orientated. For example, while the CRM mobilisation has been extraordinarily elaborated with different and competing interpretations, the establishment and the Loyalist countermovement frame processes in the 1950s and 1960s as being taken for granted and are seen as immobile (Peatling 2007; De Fazio 2007). The two communities have blinded themselves, illegitimating each others existence and view points, during the conflict. …”