Having worked for and with the former leader of the SDLP, John Hume, I often get asked about how he might respond to the challenges of today.
On the fifth anniversary of Hume’s death, a new appreciation of the transformation he brought to the lives of so many offers space to consider how his political ethic and method could be used to address the appalling situation in the Middle East.
In response to doubts, frustration and the emotional impact of atrocious events, 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.
John Hume’s life provides lessons for addressing Palestine-Israel conflict
Why is Sinn Féin so reluctant to amend climate legislation to improve the A5?
Sinn Féin, DUP and UUP have united to block plan to fix Lough Neagh
Maxol CEO: ‘People in the South spend for today. They’re still much more cautious in the North’
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 Hume: His life and timesOpens in new window ]
He would also allude to the maxim of 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) 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 Hume’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 groundbreaking 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 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. Hume 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.
Hume’s dictum that “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 part credit for our Belfast 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.
[ Gaza is also a war on the human instinct for compassionOpens in new window ]
Many tributes after Hume’s death on August 3rd, 2020 recognised a resilient single-mindedness, 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, Hume 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 Irish and British governments – including 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 acknowledgment 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 the two governments; and/or resisted concepts around institutional democratic partnership and North-South political co-operation.
All of these precepts – plus more that Hume had long espoused – were framed into the Belfast 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 Hume to endorse a model of agreed Ireland that could allow further democratic change.
[ From the archive: Nationalist leader who championed ‘agreed Ireland’Opens in new window ]
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, the New Ireland Forum, Anglo-Irish Agreement, Hume-Adams dialogue/papers, the Brooke/Mayhew talks, Downing Street Declaration, Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, framework documents, Mitchell principles, ground rules (renegotiated) for multi-party talks etc.
The single common determinator in all these – and more – was 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 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 his wife Pat Hume – an alchemist of optimism – to John’s famous “stickability”.
[ John Hume: The mesmerising persuader the public rarely got to seeOpens in new window ]
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 prejudicial 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 Hume’s will struggle for traction in what still passes for public discourse.
Mark Durkan is a former leader of the SDLP and served as Northern Ireland’s Deputy First Minister between 2001 and 2002.
