“Denial, silence and the politics of the past: Unpicking the opposition to truth recovery in Northern Ireland” by Cheryl Lawther

Cheryl Lawther, researcher in the field of law, politics, and criminology, explains unionist opposition to formal truth recovery in Northern Ireland in this article. She argues that unionist engagement with memory, identity, and denial generate a myth of blamelessness, and that silence is employed as an active, political form of communication. The increasingly recognized importance of truth recovery and acknowledgement for reconciliation underline this article’s emphasis on truth commissions and their value, as well as serve to specifically address and identify stumbling blocks in the Northern Ireland peace process. Lawther argues that, in order to further the Northern Ireland peace process, the unionist urge to be silent and in denial needs to be deconstructed.

Denial is mainly related to self-perception, or group identity, of unionists. They do not see themselves as perpetrators, but rather as protectors of law, order, and the state in the face of Irish rebels. A truth commission would expose and discuss that wrongs were committed on all sides of the conflict, and that unionists are thus also perpetrators. As this would shatter their myth of blamelessness, unionists oppose a formal truth recovery. This is also related to the myth of equivalence, which is about the unionist desire to paint themselves as the true victims of the Northern Ireland conflict, which plays into the competing narratives of victimhood in Northern Ireland that a formal truth commission would attempt to debunk and reconcile. As a consequence of this narrative of victimhood, unionists also do not wish to see nationalists receive immunity for any crimes, which often happens in a truth commission, in exchange for truth-telling. 

Lawther identifies three types of silence unionists have employed in response to calls for truth, in order to retain their narratives of the past. First, she discusses silence as passivity. Here, silence is traced back to a historical legacy of passivity in the unionist political landscape, as well as an inability to articulate their story well, as they have always considered their actions to be self-evidently justifiable reactions, but which now might not survive scrutiny by a truth commission. The second type is silence out of loyalty, specifically to the British State. A truth commission would force all actors in the conflict to come forward, which would include the British State. Unionists do not want to speak out against the British State, so as not to harm their relationship. Silence out of loyalty here can also serve the purpose of forgetting past traumatic events committed by the British State, thus keeping the unionists’ good image of the British State intact. Finally, there is silence as pragmatism, which revolves around the question of whether Northern Ireland is ready to face its past completely. There is a chance a truth commission would increase hostilities again, due to the dredging up of memories, because the situation in Northern Ireland might still be too unstable now to accomplish this without resorting back to potentially violent conflict. 

Lawther’s article thus raises questions of the functions and consequences of silence and denial, and outlines the reasons behind these practices that can arise in any context where a truth recovery might be desirable. This article thus furthers understanding of silence and denial as concepts, but also of their use in postconflict settings. Scholars in, for example, the field of law, transitional justice, and even psychology, will thus find this article useful for the understanding of potential stumble blocks postconflict societies and individuals might face in the context of truth commissions, as well as the necessity to start deconstructing these for the completion of a truth commission. This article is useful for scholars studying the Northern Ireland conflict specifically, but its conclusions can certainly be extrapolated to the instigating of truth commissions in other postconflict societies.

Author of this entry: Nienke Veenstra

Lawther, C. “Denial, silence and the politics of the past: Unpicking the opposition to truth recovery in Northern Ireland.” International Journal of Transitional Justice, 2013, 7.1, p. 157-177.