28 MAY 1977, Page 4

Political Commentary

Mr Mason's chance to shine

John Grigg

The collapse of the Protestant hard-liners? strike in Northern Ireland earlier this month was, of course, a triumph for Roy Mason and a humiliation for Ian Paisley. But all now depends upon whether or not the Northern Ireland secretary is able to make constructive use of his success. He has won an important battle in the war against extremism, but the war itself could yet be lost. Above all he should never forget that the first and worst enemy is the IRA.

Dr Paisley is now isolated from the other Unionist leaders, but this isolation could turn to his advantage if events seem to vindicate his recent behaviour rather than theirs. He joined with Protestant paramilitarists in launching a political strike, because he was convinced that only by the method which was so effective three years ago could the British Government be forced to wage serious war against the IRA and to give the majority community in Ulster its democratic rights.

Though it is clear enough that most members of that community do not at present agree with his choice of method — they have demonstrated the fact with great courage — it is vital to realise that there is, nevertheless, overwhelming support for his aims. If Mr Mason fails to take urgent steps to meet Unionist grievances, it will not be long before moderate Protestant opinion swings behind Dr Paisley and today's Unionist leaders go the way of the late Lord Faulkner after Sunningdale.

The Official Unionists are in a very tricky and precarious position. Last week's local elections have certainly given them no mandate to negotiate a return to powersharing, and it must be significant that William Craig, who has recently been the strongest Unionist advocate of 'voluntary' power-sharing, has emerged very badly from the elections, his Vanguard Party having been virtually wiped out except at Larne.

On the other hand, Dr Paisley's Democratic Unionists have apparently made substantial gains. 'Apparently' is the right word, because the gains are only by comparison with the last local elections, in 1973, in which Dr Paisley showed only a limited interest and in which his party won less than five per cent of the first preference votes: The more valid comparison is with the Convention election two years ago, when the DUP won about fourteen per cent of such votes. Last week it won about twelve per cent, so in fact support for Dr Paisley may be said to have slightly declined.

But that he lost only a little ground at a time when many commentators were writing his political obituary is evidence of the loyalty that he still inspires and of the strong base from which he can still operate. Moreover, good judges believe that the progress made by the inter-communal Alliance Party would not necessarily be sustained in an election fought specifically and exclusively on constitutional issues.

Mr Mason must be careful not to misread the lessons of the recent strike. In particular, he must guard against the temptation to assume that its failure was simply, or even mainly, due to his own toughness and skill, admirable though these were. The truth is that without hjs vigorous cooperation the desire of most Unionists to stay at work would have been overborne, but that if that desire had not existed he would have been unable to break the strike by any means short of outright physical repression.

He deserves much praise for his handling of the crisis, and no discount should be made for the lucky capture, just before the strike, of the UDA's detailed plans for the setting-up of roadblocks. (Luck is nearly always an indispensable ingredient of success.) But equally he should understand that in the absence of mass Unionist support he could not hope to pull it off again, nor even expect the considerable assistance from the media that he received last time.

As a former official of the NUM he is well qualified to draw conclusions from the politically motivated strike by his _ own union which largely caused the downfall of the Heath government, and which served as an example to the Ulster Worker's Council in May 1974. The miners' defiance of the law (in the form of a statutory incomes policy) succeeded on that occasion because public opinion in general was doubtful and confused. If the Labour movement's political leaders and other trade unionists had made an unequivocal stand against illegal action, and against the use of industrial power for political ends, Mr Heath might have emerged as triumphantly then as Mr Mason has emerged now — and Merlyn Rees might have been spared the ignominy of his defeat at the hands of the Ulster workers.

Whether or not Mr Mason is reflecting upon the fate of Mr Heath and of his own predecessor in the Northern Ireland Office, there can be no doubt at all that Harry West and other leaders of the Official Unionist Party are acutely aware of the political fate of Lord Faulkner, and of the reasons for it. They know that he forfeited the confidence of his own community because, having formed a power-sharing executive with the SDLF', he then at Sunningdale conceded the principle of a Council of Ireland without

obtaining any countervailing concessions from the Ulster minority or from the Irish Republic. The tragedy of Sunningdale was that it turned even moderate Unionists against a power-sharing executive which in manY ways was fun&ioning well and which might gradually have been accepted as the normal, appropriate form of government for Northern Ireland, Instead, the very idea of power-sharing was discredited through association with the fear of a sell-out to Irish republicanism. Culturally and politically there are two Irelands, which will never be brought together in total isolation from Gre„.at Britain. Bonar Law was quite right when said that there was no logic which wunIu justify breaking the political unity of the British Isles, which would not also justifY the political partition of Ireland. Of course there can be no going back to the status ante 1921, but Unionists have had to aecerh. so many traumatic changes in recent year,5 that if there is to be any further advance ittsd now up to republican politicians, north an south of the Border, to make sacrifices. Gerry Fitt has at last felt able to PaY somewhat grudging tribute to the R°Ya Ulster Constabulary, but he will need to go much further if he is to win the confidence of Unionists. He will need to say that he hopes there may eventually be some sort 'historic compromise' between Ir,is nationalism and Ulster Unionism, but meanwhile his whole-hearted allegianc,e15d to Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom of which it is part. He rni•L'a actively discourage the idea that it is matter of time before Ulster Unionists sent to merge themselves in a united Iris' republic. Mr Mason's first task must be to sill that he is even more determined to ernsit IRA murderers than Unionist strikers' ti was unfortunate that the reinforcetnente brought over to deal with the strike wehe not kept in Northern Ireland to intensifY struggle against IRA terrorism. Ilifehe immediate return was bound to confirrn worst suspicions of Protestant hard-line`„ri Such is Mr Mason's prestige that he afford one bad mistake, but one is owl so It will be impossible to defeat the IlElf.t is long as the 'godfathers' are at large, art'? of hard to see how they can be Put 131/,l` w. circulation by normal processes .of aac Detention without trial is an odious tice, but unless it is used against the 10er5 terrorists the far more odious practiL, d which they direct will never be stain out. On the political front, it is now triorri,e5 important than ever that Northern Irelan'be representation at Westminster should of made proportionately equivalent to thato the rest of the United Kingdom. Nu od act would do more to convince friends ao enemies alike in Ulster that we °his business. If Mr Mason cannot persuade colleagues to agree to this as an overrldm priority his laurels will ,soon wither.