Person of the Year 2007
This has been a remarkable year of change in politics across the world, yet there are few examples of positive change that have impressed more people around the world than the formation of this unlikely political double-act. Northern Ireland's First Minister, Ian Paisley, and Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, have been co-leaders of the new Stormont Executive since devolution returned on May 8th this year. The idea of a power-sharing government headed by Sinn Fein and the DUP was once regarded as practically impossible -- or even a political doomsday scenario. It would be an understatement of biblical proportions to say that this partnership was historically unlikely, but it has worked to the astonishment of most people in Britain and Ireland. Of course, not everyone is happy about it; and none are more surprised (and disappointed) than some of Ian Paisley's erstwhile religious allies. Northern Ireland has, nevertheless, felt like a new place this year, with an unexpected entrance of confidence and optimism. We name Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness as our Person of the Year for 2007 (or should that be Person and Deputy Person of the Year?):
For looking like they have truly embraced change rather than merely touching shoulders with it.
For laughing together. Often.
For transforming the atmosphere of Northern Ireland.
For lifting the gavel together at the New York Stock Exchange, making Sinn Fein and the DUP joint accolytes in the cathedral of global capitalism.
For surprising everyone and showing that it is possible to overcome the past.
For enhancing the reputation of the original .
For redefining the word "Deputy", which now means "Joint".
For quoting the Bible very appropriately (for a change): "We know not what a day may bring forth".
For leaving hundreds of thousands of people wondering, "What was all that about?"
For proving that political miracles are possible.
For becoming the poster-boys of teetotalism, thus joining George W Bush in the exclusive club of non-drinking heads of government.
For demonstrating the wisdom of the poet Seamus Heaney, who once said that we speak too often of "the others" or "the other side" when what we need to do is to get to a place of "through-otherness".
Comments
This film is so funny they banned it in Norway!
Eh?
Thought about this a lot - in the end I agree. It may seem like a local call - but look at where we are and where we were - (you are very young William - you don't always get it all. In the end it's an International Call.
Look at where we are now and where Pakistan and Nigeria is tonight.
Resolve and build.
HNY to you and all at Sequence. Good call.
Couldn't be more fitting. Happy new year Will and fellow readers/commenters, here's to a lively 2008.
Have to admit that was probably the right choice. Happy New Year - looking forward to more interesting debate in the coming year.
As for the Free Presbyterian Church the real person of the year will be elected on Friday night to replace their never, never man.
Good choice William and a happy new year to you and all your readers.
Lets hope we have another good year of debate on Will and Testament.
I knew this choice was coming when William expressed surprise on Sunday Sequence that none of his panellists had chosen the pair. But let me express a dissident voice to the other comments so far. I remain sceptical but open to being convinced by reasons, not statements. Take a couple of William鈥檚 reasons:
1. 鈥淔or looking like they have truly embraced change rather than merely touching shoulders with it鈥.
What is the evidence for this, other than 鈥榗huckling鈥 together in public? Both voted against the extension of abortion to NI. Is this embracing change? Has Paisley stopped his Sunday anti-Catholic rants? Does he now think the pope is a Christian? Has McGuinness helped the McCartney and Quinn families to find the killers of their loved ones? Has he helped the Omagh families where he can in their campaign for justice? Will he tell us if any of the Omagh bombers were formerly in the IRA? Has he helped to find the perpetrators of Enniskillen? Or La Mon? Or anywhere else where IRA thugs murdered people in cold blood?
2.鈥淔or transforming the atmosphere of Northern Ireland鈥.
Of course, it all depends what you mean by 鈥榓tmosphere鈥. But following from William鈥檚 first point above, let us assume that it means something real and significant. In this case it is surely an insult to practically everybody else in two main ways.
Firstly, it insults all those who have tried to live a decent life and contribute to the common good during the last 40 years in the face of the efforts of people like Paisley and McGuinness to wreck it.
Secondly, it insults those who died because of the hateful atmosphere that these two helped to create in this period. Since they inflamed the killing atmosphere in the past, can it be right to thank them for allegedly stopping something they should never have started in the first place? The implication seems to be that those who create bad things are the only ones here capable of creating good things. 鈥淲e click our fingers and you hate one another, then suddenly we laugh together and all is rosy in the garden鈥.
A better moral would be from the Life of Brian, shown on Channel 4 the other night. 鈥淵ou don't need to follow me, You don't need to follow anybody. You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!鈥
We don鈥檛 need the likes of Paisley or McGuinness to teach us what is good (or bad) or how to create a good, friendly atmosphere. I was born on the Shankill of a loyalist background and brought up a Presbyterian. I am now a republican humanist. I reached that position by my own reasoning and discussions with friends of other persuasions. I didn't need any of our pathetic excuse for politicians in the past to create the atmosphere in which I would welcome 'the other'.
When we learn that message, we will truly have a better society. 30 years of hatemongering is not eradicated by nine months of cheesy public grinning.
I can never understand how it is that politicians who have spent much of their life and career sowing the seeds of hatred are glorified by some people when they finally appear to wise up. It is tantamount to an appalling lesson to young people or young politicians to be as nasty and destructive as possible because when you finally reform you will be praised all the more.
Is it a case of sinners repenting? As Emo Philips the comedian put it: 鈥 When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn鈥檛 work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me鈥. Except that in this case the chuckle brothers have not even repented. Perhaps when they both appear in public wearing sackcloth and ashes, then and then only might I consider giving them a vote.
Brian, you're sounding a lit like the old DUP ... Not an inch until they crawl along Royal Avenue on their hands and knees pleading for forgiveness. Your website suggests that you are a humanist; so am I. I'm a little surprised that in Northern Ireland, the religious fundamentalist Paisely is embracing his former enemy, the former IRA leader McGuinness is showing a willingness to work with Paisley ... and the humanists are against it! Astonishing, really. Wouldn't you be better to say: Ok, they took their time getting to this point, and they were both part of the problem (dangerous religion and dangerous ideology makes for a dangerous mix), but I am glad they are doing what they are doing now? Wouldn't you be better to put the past behind you, as a humanist, just as the Republicans and DUP are trying to do at this point? I have heard from friends about the "fundamentalism" of humanisn in NI, but until now I had now idea what they meant.
Hi Jeremy,
I knew my comment would generate some weird and wonderful logical leaps and here we go.
Hold on a minute! I am only expressing a personal opinion here. Humanists are essentially freethinkers and I am quite sure that there are other humanists who don't agree with me, just as there are other people who are not humanists who do.
I made it clear in my posting that I was opposed to both extremes and have been throughout the Troubles. I want both extremist groups to do the crawling, Jeremy. Read my posting and you will see this. The DUP don't want the DUP to 'crawl' along Royal Avenue, after all, do they?
You should ask yourself how someone who has always voted Alliance can be called a fundamentalist! But I suppose that's NI for you. Don't criticise these two fundamentalists who are 'trying to put the past behind them' or you'll be labelled... a fundamentalist!
I am not against Paisley working with McGuinness. Frankly, they are welcome to each other. But if more people had supported moderate parties instead of surrendering to the extremes, then we wouldn't have either of them where they are.
Let us think of the future, Jeremy. I don't want NI to be ruled by either the DUP or Sinn Fein, for as far as I am concerned neither of these parties stands for the kind of values that Humanists generally espouse: reason, love, compassion, freedom, tolerance, justice. I want to see a liberal, secular, open and tolerant society. If these two help us get there, then and then only will I agree with you. until then, I remain dubious. Only time will tell.
PS
I asked for arguments to persuade me, not name-calling.
I鈥檓 with Brian on this one. You can be glad that someone has stopped beating their wife without feeling the urge to give them a medal.
I watched the Devolution Day coverage expecting to find it surreal but positive. Instead I surprised myself by getting angry. The significance of the events was not lost on me but I saw no justification at all for why it couldn鈥檛 have happened at least 20 years earlier.
We might have to endure this necessary evil as only the war-mongers can end a war but I don鈥檛 think the rest of us have to pretend that these new best buddies are something they are not. Instead of marvelling at how they are laughing together, I am marvelling at how they can have the gall to laugh at all given what they were responsible for.
I fully appreciate the progress that is now possible but it has a nasty taste knowing that a normal life for the rest of us is dependent upon the permission of the likes of these two. I only hope that they can be kept merely as souvenirs of what we have left behind whilst the other politicians learn what real issues-based non-tribal politics is all about.
These leopards have changed their spots through tactical re-assessment, not moral growth. I fail to see what is fundamentalist about recognising that this does not qualify them for a clean slate.
Jeremy,
I had further thoughts on your comment: 鈥淲ouldn't you be better to put the past behind you, as a humanist, just as the Republicans and DUP are trying to do at this point鈥? I wrote about it in a letter which appeared in a couple of local newspapers, which I reproduce here.
I did not address the 'humanist' part of your statement: all I can say is that most humanists in my experience are indeed 'fundamentalist' in their opposition to cruelty in all forms and long may they continue to be so. We have lived through 30 years of frequent extreme cruelty and nastiness, both physical and verbal, committed by the very people who you say 'want to put the past behind them'. I, for one, will not let them off that hook.
FORGIVENESS NEEDED FOR RECONCILIATION
The French proverb 'to know all is to forgive all' has a certain amount of truth in it. But in the recent debate about whether or not we should forgive those who fought a "war" which is now over, the idea of forgiveness is being touted in the context of a fog of ignorance and silence. There can be no forgiveness until we remove the bias against understanding.
To say that 'we should put the past behind us' is, in effect, saying that we should not try to understand other people's actions. Nature is cruel: people get nasty illnesses and die from them without any apparent
reason. But human cruelty is different because we can make moral choices to be good or bad.
When groups and individuals do appalling things to others, like putting a bomb in a bus and blowing them to pieces, we cannot and should not let them off the hook of accountability for their actions.
We do not say that "we should put the past behind us" when we teach history in school. When pupils study the Holocaust, for example, they do so in order to try to understand why it is that some people were capable
of such inhumanity.
And, of course, when they study our Troubles they want to know what was going on and why. Similarly, a victim's relative wants to know why their loved one was deemed expendable.
The bottom line is that the paramilitaries have to explain why they considered it necessary to kill and to kill brutally. For example, the IRA (or Sinn Fein) have to explain why, in a war allegedly against the British state, more fellow Irish people were targeted and killed than the alleged enemy. The loyalist groups have to explain why they needed to defend Ulster by viciously killing Catholics.
Merely stating that there was a "war", however we define that term, does not clarify such actions. Only when proper explanations or apologies are made can we begin the process of forgiveness