MULTICULTURALISM, DIVERSITY AND LIBERAL EGALITARIANISM IN NORTHERN IRELAND

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

There is insufficient space here to discuss those theorists who have suggested forms of deliberative democracy as potentially transformative of the political beliefs of participants in political debate. These theorists are often influenced by the work of Jurgen Habermas. Much of this literature has not touched explicitly on Northern Ireland but exceptions can be found in Delanty (1996) and O'Neill (2000, 2002). Critical responses to O'Neill's arguments can be found in Newey (2002) and Little (2003).

Kymlicka differentiates between ‘national minorities’ (e.g. Catholics within Northern Ireland) on one hand and immigrants on the other on the basis of the historical location of the former groups in a particular territory. Where the former are to be granted special minority group rights, immigrants are expected to assimilate with the prevailing norms and institutions. Not surprisingly, this has generated considerable controversy. Similar assumptions underpin some of Thompson's (2002, 2003) claims in his defence of parity of esteem.

I am thinking in particular of the feminist analysis of Young (1990). However it is worth noting that there have been some dissonant voices within the liberal tradition that establish alternative versions of the implications of value pluralism. See, for example, Gray (2000) and Crowder (2002).

For discussion of the exemption from the law on motorcycle helmets for Sikhs and the carrying of ceremonial weapons with regard to the ‘rule and exemption’ approach see Barry (2001: 40–50) and Caney (2002).

Clearly this alludes to traditional nationalist objections to aspects of the Northern Irish or British state. However it is equally the case that rejectionist unionists do not regard some of the provisions of the Belfast Agreement such as the British–Irish Council as ‘neutral’ in any meaningful sense. The continuing controversies over policing demonstrate just how difficult it is to operationalise conceptions of impartiality in any society, let alone one as fragmented and conflictual as Northern Ireland.

An alternative unionist critique of parity of esteem is provided by Porter (1996: 187–99).

There are of course considerable ambiguities in contemporary discourses on civil society (Little 2002a, 2002b) and these are manifest in the literature concerned with Northern Ireland. Not the least of these ambiguities is the conflictual nature of civil society which is often at odds with the more wholesome depiction of it in community‐based politics in Northern Ireland. One example of such tensions lies between the separatist, exclusivist possibilities which emanate out of parity of esteem and the more integrated, inclusivist ethos which underpins cross‐community initiatives.

The treatment of practices as cultural rather than political is nicely summed up by Coulter (1999: 173): ‘Banging a lambeg drum or speaking the Irish language become essentially the same as playing bridge or arranging flowers’.

In the Northern Irish context the debate surrounding consociationalism has been conducted most notably by O'Leary (1999) and Dixon (1997).