When Being Right is Wrong

When Being Right is Wrong
Written in 1988

By Brian Elroy McKinley

I was traveling on a train from Dublin, Ireland, to Belfast, Northern Ireland. In the compartment with me was a man from the Northern Irish town of Londonderry. He called it by its original, pre-British-control, name of Derry. This revealed him to be from the Catholic side of the Northern Irish conflict. We talked at length about the "troubles," as they are called in the north. The train pulled into the border town of Newry, where usually the British police would do a visual check of the passengers. Instead, we were instructed to get off the train--seems the Irish Republican Army (IRA) had threatened to blow it up. We were all herded into buses in order to continue our trip to Belfast. During the process I walked with the man from Derry and sat next to him on the bus. After a number of grumbling remarks about the IRA's poor choice in targets, I turned to my new friend and asked if he thought the troubles would ever end. After some thought he looked down at the floor and said,"No, there's just too much hate for them to stop." Though his response, on this IRA-detoured trip to Belfast, was the same as all those I'd asked during my stays in Ireland, nevertheless, I cannot stop believing there isa way to stop the fighting in Northern Ireland.
Ireland has a long history. For thousands of years it was a country of clans, each clan sending a representative to a yearly, country-wide decision-making council. Their language was Gaelic, and Druid priests ruled over most daily events. In 432 a.d. St. Patrick spread Catholicism throughout the island, eventually displacing the Druids. Loyalty to the druid priests was replaced by loyalty to the Catholic priests, and ultimately, to the pope. In 1154 the pope told the then Catholic king of England to take Ireland under his dominion and form a northern "United Kingdom." From 1510 to 1550 the Reformation took place in Europe--England turning to Protestantism and Ireland remaining Catholic. Soon after, England moved thousands of Protestants from Scotland to live in the northern six counties of Ireland. The idea was to gain a Protestant foothold in Ireland that would be loyal to a Protestant British crown. The Irish remained staunchly loyal to their priests and to the pope, so England enacted stiff laws to keep the Irish in line. They outlawed the Gaelic language, forcing the people to speak English instead. They outlawed ownership of land by Catholics, then established a law requiring ownership of land before gaining the right to vote.
With no language, no land and no vote, a number of Catholic Irishmen and women were involved in uprisings against the British. They were never very successful and gained little popular support among the peasants. However, in 1845 a five-year famine started. Even as farmers ran out of food for their families, the British continued to demand their rent in the form of food grown on the land. A million people died; another million fled the country; and still another million were kicked out of their homes for failure to pay their rent. And yet the British continued to export cattle to be eaten in England. This embedded a deep-rooted hatred for the British by the average Irish man and woman. Seventy years of uprisings and political activity finally ended in the signing of a treaty giving all but the northern six, predominantly Protestant, counties back to the Irish. In 1922, the Irish Free State (a self-ruling nation aligned with England) emerged, and in 1945, Ireland was officially declared a Republic, ending all ties with the United Kingdom.
The division of Ireland has been an ongoing sore spot between Ireland and the United Kingdom, but the real trouble has been in the northern six counties that remain under British control--now known as Northern Ireland. There, the population is two-thirds Protestant and one-third Catholic. The Catholics have tended to want Northern Ireland reunited with the Irish Republic. Extremist elements of the Catholic side have formed into both a legal political party, Sinn Fein (pronounced "shinfane"), and an illegal military group, the Irish Republican Army. They have tried to force the English to give up Northern Ireland.Their goal is to terrorize the English until the English people, themselves, tell their government to leave Northern Ireland alone.
Extremist elements have sprung from the Protestant side as well. The leading political party in Northern Ireland is the Unionist Party. Their platform is solely to keep Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom and away from the "papist" south. They are loyal to the British crown and avidly opposed to Catholicism. Their leader is the Reverend Ian Paisley. Another organization of Protestants is the Orange Order. This is a paramilitary organization divided into neighborhoods and lodges. Their sole reason for existence is to "protect" the north from what they call the "papist scum" who want to take away their British citizenship and replace it with a unified Ireland. They are known for instigating violent riots against Catholics and for burning unwanted Catholics out of their homes. The bombings and the burnings have become an unending cycle in a conflict that, like my friend from the train said, seems as if it will never end.
And why is this conflict unending? Because both sides are right. The Catholics, being descendents of the original Irish inhabitants, want to be part of a whole and united Ireland. They want the same thing their Irish brothers and sisters now have in the Republic of Ireland. For them, the struggle of independence from an "invading" country has never ended. The memory of British atrocities is as clear in their minds as if they all happened yesterday. They have a birthright to rule their own country, to be free from British "oppression." And like any good soldier fighting for the liberation of his country, they are willing to die for their just cause. On the other hand, the Protestants in Northern Ireland have lived there for over four hundred years. Though their forefathers came from Great Britain, they have been on Irish soil twice as long as we, in the United States, have been a nation. They don't consider themselves "Irish"; rather, they call themselves "Northern Irish." They are a democratic majority and have used that right to vote for continued English rule of their province. So with the Catholics claiming the "right" to regain their country from an invading force, and the Protestants claiming the democratic "right" to remain part of England, the battle lines are clearly drawn, and the people are willing to fight for their rights.
With each side willing to die, and kill, for rights that are mutually exclusive, how can there ever be a solution to the problem?
The answer is grace.
Now I know the word "grace" brings to mind many religious images,and that's not altogether inappropriate considering the extremely religious nature of my topic. But I want to take the word out of its religious tradition and use its pure definition. Grace is the giving up of one's rights in order to benefit another. In Christianity we say that Christ gave up his right to deity to become human and die on our behalf. In this understanding, Christ extended grace to us. What I'm suggesting is that the Northern Irish people extend grace to one another. Each side needs to give up its rights and, instead, work for the benefit of the other side.
Working for the other side would mean the Catholics would give up their claim to be joined with the Republic of Ireland. Instead they would embrace the needs of the Protestants. They would work toward an atmosphere where the Protestants would not feel like they had to struggle to keep their British heritage. Extending grace would mean the Protestants would give up their democratically recognized right to control the destiny of Northern Ireland. They would recognize the oppressed feelings of the Catholics and give them equal control of the government. Together, as each side would work for the benefit of the other, the Northern Irish people would form an autonomous province that would function as both a part of Ireland and as part of the United Kingdom.
This proposal has many problems, the foremost of which is that it goes against human nature. Similarly, but more specifically, it goes against hundreds of years of inbred hatred and mistrust on both sides of the conflict. Accordingly, there are no authority figures to whom it can be proposed. Most of the leaders in Northern Ireland come from Sinn Fein or the Unionist Party. Instead of being open to extending grace, they have worked to perpetuate the troubles by rallying their people around their just causes. Even when the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom signed an agreement in 1985 that gave Ireland limited control over Northern Ireland in exchange for a vow not to annex the province, these leaders rallied their people to denounce the agreement because it imposed on their rights. I was in Belfast the week after the agreement was signed and watched as the Unionist Party hung a huge banner on the front of the city hall that read "BELFAST SAYS NO." Soon after, the IRA issued a statement in the Belfast Telegraph saying the agreement interfered with the ongoing struggle of the Irish nationals for independence. In short, the very audience to whom I make my proposal are liable to not want to hear it, and even those that might probably will not have the ability to make the needed changes.
Even with all these strikes against it, I will nonetheless make my proposal--primarily because there is no better alternative. It is a proposal directly to the Northern Irish people to realize that there are only two directions their situation can go. One, they can continue fighting until there is one blood-stained victor--a struggle that could continue for another several hundred years. Or two, they can recognize that both sides are equally right and be willing to give up that right for the benefit of the whole.
Although the latter possibility seems like a utopian dream, there is enough historical evidence to support the idea's feasibility. The history of the civilized world has been a gradual movement away from a self-centered abuse of others to a society that embraces a variety of peoples. Granted, in the past selfishness has wreaked much havoc on the world in the form of totalitarian regimes, world wars and ethnic oppression, but rather than this being the norm in modern times, these situations are increasingly being seen as the exception. Even as I write this, totalitarian governments are bowing to the wishes of their people and stepping aside to allow democratic reforms. Though slow and uneven, progress is being made in reducing the threat of another world war. People on both sides of the east-west conflict are demanding we work for the benefit of both sides, rather than the mere protection of one or the other. Amazingly, our leaders are becoming more sympathetic and working toward that goal. And even though ethnic differences still create tensions in many parts of the world, people are slowly realizing the need to work for the benefit of all races in order to minimize those tensions. Even the leaders of white-controlled South Africa seem to be moving in this direction.
In all of these situations, it has taken leaders who have seen beyond the selfish goals of their constituency to the greater needs of the whole. They have been leaders who understood that in an unending conflict situation, their people will benefit by the giving up of certain claims they have in exchange for the benefits of society at large. Soviet president, Mikhail Gorbachev, has been such a leader. He has moved beyond the official Communist Party line and has the appearance of working for the benefit of both sides of the east-west conflict. He has been willing to give up certain "rights" in order to move the world closer to peace and stability. Instead of pushing for his people to fight for the rights of only the Soviet Union, he has led his people toward greater international cooperation, giving up some of his party's control over the people in the process. Though certainly not the only reason, his actions have been largely responsible for the dramatic changes currently happening in Eastern Europe and in the world.
South African president, F. W. de Klerk, is another such example. He has recognized the fact that continued white control of his country will only perpetuate the conflict. Although the white settlers were the ones who built the powerful South African economy out of an untamed African wilderness, de Klerk understands that he must work for the rights of the millions of blacks who want a share in running that economy. He has come to understand that their right to self-determination and the right of the ruling white-run government to protect their investment will continue to create the violence that undermines the country as a whole. Against the advice of the extremists, he has been slowly dismantling the apartheid laws that keep blacks from fully participating in society.
An important deviation is necessary here. It is critical to mention a necessary quality a leader must have in order to gain the support of the masses. That quality is authority--which should not be confused with power. As a leader with power I could probably force you to do things you normally wouldn't. I might keep you in line by sheer force. But you, most likely, will resent me, and someday when someone who dislikes me sneaks up and gives you a gun, you may very well try to overthrow me. If I have mor eforce, I may crush your rebellion. If you have more force, you may throw me out. If we are equal, we may end up in a protracted conflict, much like the one in El Salvador. If, on the other hand, I work hard for your benefit, if I take risks on your behalf and become your friend by working along side you, then when I ask you to do something for me, you most likely will do it because you want to. Rather than ruling from power, I will be ruling from the authority you have given me.
We can see this difference between power and authority in a number of world events. The current Filipino president, Corazon Aquino, came to her position on a wave of popular support. Her husband, Benino Aquino, had been in exile in the United States, where he tried in vain to free his nation from the powerful hand of then president, Ferdinand Marcos. Upon recognition that he did not have the power to overthrow Marcos, Aquino realized he must work from authority--authority that would only come when his people realized he loved them enough to die for them. He did just that. Knowing he would be killed if he returned to the Philippines, he trained his wife in administration, then chartered a plane home. He was shot as he stepped on the tarmac. His death gained him, and his wife, an authority so strong that even Marcos' best troops fell in line behind Corizon Aquino. She had no power, but her authority overthrew the power of Marcos.
The leader of India, Mahatma Gandhi, had no army, no political power, no money, but he was able to guide his people to independence from England. England had massive power, but Gandhi had authority. Gandhi's authority was so strong that it also helped heal some of the religious strife in India. One time, after a battle between Hindus and Muslims, a Hindu man asked Gandhi what he should do to heal the situation. Gandhi told him to find an orphaned Muslim and raise him--as a Muslim. Instead of ignoring Gandhi and continuing to fight, he, and many others, did just that.
And so it could be in Northern Ireland, if the people on both sides raise up leaders willing to work for the benefit of the whole. Rather than continuing to parade behind the rightness of their causes--killing, maiming and devaluing the lives of so many Northern Irelanders in the process--the Northern Irish can change their situation, first, by withdrawing their support from their extremist leaders who forever remind their people of how the other side wants to take away their rights, and second, by backing moderate leaders from within their ranks who are willing to work for the benefit of the other side. They need to stop listening to the Ian Paisleys, to the IRA, and start looking for their own Aquinos and Gandhis. When this happens, a marvelous healing can begin. Not only will the leaders on both sides gain authority from their constituents by striving for the benefit oftheir people, but in a strange twist of human nature, the leaders of each side will gain authority from the opposing side's constituents because they will be working for their benefit as well. We have clearly seen this process revealed in the current popularity of Soviet president, Gorbachev ,among the people of Western Europe and even in the United States.
By working from authority, rather than power, by being willing to give up being right and, instead, working for the benefit of the opposition and the society as a whole, by extending grace to one another, the people of Northern Ireland do have the option to end their long, bitter struggle. And although this answer seems long on idealism and short on reality, it is really the only alternative to a life of continued violence and conflict.
In fact, this proposal is the only alternative in any unending conflict. Whether a conflict is on an international, national, community, family or personal level, there are only a few possible scenarios. Either one side will recognize that it is not in the right, and the conflict will be over. Or one side will use might to overpower the other side, and the conflict will be over (until the loser regains enough power to fight back). Or both sides will be equally matched, and the conflict will be unending- -unless one, or both, sides are willing to forgo their rights and work for the benefit of the other. For instance, in times when a husband is in a struggle with his wife and believes he is right, rather than fight for that right, the better alternative is to work, instead, for the benefit of his wife. Likewise, she should do the same for him, because on those occasions when they have both been right, but been unwilling to surrender that right for the benefit of the whole, the whole (their union as a couple) has been severely damaged. By demanding their rights, they both suffer.
So in ending, let me say to the people of Northern Ireland, and to all involved in unending conflict: you are probably right, but there are times when being right is wrong, and the only way out is to work for the rights of your opponents. The only way out is by extending grace.

Editors Note: It's now been ten years since I wrote this, and I'm amazed at what history has transpired. The Soviet Union voted itself out of existence. South Africa voted Mandela as president. And Northern Ireland has a peace treaty on the table that shows both sides are willing to give each other grace in order to establish peaceful co-existence. And indeed, in each of these situations, the truth of grace, of giving up "rights" in order to fight for the greater good of others, even our enemies, has proven necessary. Maybe, just maybe, one day our own U.S. Congress will take a cue from history and learn that grace solves more problems than the defense of intractable position ever will.

Email: el@elroy.com

Go Back to The Event Horizon Rider