A new approach to the legacy of the past
By Thomas Hennessey, Professor of Modern British and Irish History at Canterbury Christ Church University.
He was an Independent Commissioner on the Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) Commission which sat from 2016-20.
Reconciliation and Historical Clarification
1.1 In Northern Ireland we have a society that cannot agree over its past. Different ‘truths’ exist about the ‘Troubles’. No one protagonist is without sin in the conflict.
1.2 The United Kingdom is a mature democracy. That means it is governed by the rule of law. That means it is committed to the peaceful transfer of power. That means its institutions have proved remarkably stable over decades if not centuries. It is not legitimate to hold it to the same standards as one would with former dictatorships or totalitarian regimes.
1.3 Essentially the UK can be considered a ‘consolidated democracy’: in a such a democracy a political regime is a complex system of institutions, rules, and patent incentives and disincentives which no significant political group seriously attempts to overthrow the democratically ship or to promote domestic or international violence in order to secede from the state.
1.4 In Northern Ireland this was not the case. The constitutional settlement was disputed. The collective trauma that Northern Ireland has endured, does not fit neatly into the image of a consolidated democracy.
1.5 The British state upheld the rule of law in Northern Ireland during the 30 years of conflict and a campaign of political violence by non-state actors. This should be recorded in any history of the conflict.
1.6 The British state did engage in infringements of human rights in Northern Ireland. This should be recorded in any history of the conflict.
1.7 A judgement as to what is the best way that permits the possibility of a shared future for Northern Ireland is necessary for the common good. How can relationships be rebuilt? How can all acknowledge, remember, and learn from the past. At the same time what is the best way to build a better society?
1.8 One of the ways to do this is through the uses of historical narratives as a mechanism to address the legacy of the past, and use the critical historical method as a tool for clarification, to uncover unknown or misinterpreted past events and challenge ill-informed historical accounts.
1.9 The process of this historical clarification provides a framework to allow a nuanced understanding of the causes and consequences of past events, correcting the historical record where necessary.
1.10 The concept of historical dialogue is an ongoing effort among antagonistic groups in order to build and strengthen civil society and political commitments to address past wrongdoing.
1.11 Historical dialogue becomes a vehicle to deconstruct narratives that are based on inaccurate historical memories in order to help society to find alternative ways to overcome historic antagonisms. It moves discussion of the past away from the level of individual responsibility unto the level of political reconciliation.
1.12 These historical narratives are seen to address issues of collective responsibility, rather than collective guilt, fostering recognition and acknowledgement. Collective guilt, on its own, does very little to contribute to political reconciliation as often it reinforces narratives of past forms of
victimisation and sees a future with these still being reproduced. Thus it is necessary to turn the acceptance of guilt into a political tool to encourage recognition of responsibility for past wrongs.
1.13 In order for this to happen, it is crucial to shift the conceptualisation for collective guilt (accusatory narrative) to collective responsibility. History, framed under the theoretical frame of historical dialogue, has the potential to foster this shift from collective guilt to collective responsibility.
1.14 The complexity of historical development enables a process of critical reflection that can create new historical interpretations. By offering an evidence-based context of the contested past, historical events open the space for a shift from accusatory narratives towards more explanation based on accurate and contextualised historical facts.
Writing A History of the Troubles
2.1 In Northern Ireland, the issue of dealing with the past appeared to have been answered with the Stormont House Agreement (SHA) in 2014. However SHA was never implemented due to the fact that the main political parties, which in broad terms, agreed the package, could not reach a consensus on the whether this would mean the possibility of a disproportionate prosecution of security force personnel (Democratic Unionist Party or DUP) and the role of a national security veto to be exercised by the UK Government (Sinn Fein).
2.2 I was concerned that the SHA proposals excluded archival historians. The Model Bill team – who have set out how the Agreement should work in practice – appeared self-selecting and to be dominated by lawyers. The only historian on the team works on oral sources; they do not appear to have anyone who knows what is in the archives. I can vouch, as an archival historian, who has written on the Northern Ireland conflict, that the idea there is nothing new in the archives is untrue.
2.3 The complete access to the archives, without political interference, is the only way to secure a balanced and proportionate picture of the past. In particular, intelligence files will allow historians to trace the internal dynamics of paramilitary organizations as well as the state’s motives. Some files are available which give an operational account of individual Army battalions stationed in Northern Ireland. This will complement oral history not replace it. This would require a historian with archival skills, preferably familiar with what has been released to date, to navigate these, and other, files.
2.4 A process can be devised to hold individuals, organisations, and institutions accountable for their decisions to keep to or go against accepted political, social, moral, and legal standards.
2.5 Historians seek out the context for what was said and done. Archival documents can give one a window on decisions at the time. They are not written with a view to justifying a decision to future generations. They are about the conditions and pressures that pertained at the time one is assessing.
European Examples of Dealing with the Past Using History
3.1 The path of historical research has been taken by many of our western European neighbours and shows an alternative way to the dealing with the past. It is arguable that a European model offers a better way to look at Northern Ireland than the examples of dictatorships such as Guatemala or Argentina as championed by Transitional Justice advocates. This can still make for uncomfortable reading for many including the State.
3.2 When President Emmanuel Macron watched antiracism protests in French cities during the summer of 2020, he saw the poison of the Algerian War still coursing through society. This war – fought between 1954 and 1962 – had been hugely destructive. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed, more than two million people were forced from their homes, bombs went off on both sides of the Mediterranean, officials, politicians and journalists were targeted for assassination, and the French Fourth Republic was overthrown.
3.3 Macron called on France to ‘look at all of our history lucidly together’. On the advice of the historian Benjamin Stora, Macron committed to running oral history projects, appointing commissions, publishing history books, opening archives, and creating a museum. Macron did not apologise on behalf of the French state; he did not repeal a long standing amnesty; and he did not seek the approval of Algiers. France is at the start of the process. Other European societies have successfully completed theirs.
3.4 In Germany, government departments commissioned official histories of their conduct during the Nazi era. The Dutch government charged the Institute for War Documentation with authoring a historical report on the fall of Srebrenica during the break up of Yugoslavia. The report led to the fall of the Dutch government. Spanish archives declassified papers on Franco’s dictatorship. The Swedish government funded studies into the illegal activities of their intelligence services. Austria’s federal authorities tasked a historian with setting up a museum of contemporary history.
What Historians Have to Offer
4.1 What do historians offer societies seeking to come to terms with the past? A historical narrative can incorporate multiple voices and perspectives. Alongside stories about suffering, struggle, and service, it can explore the strength shown by ordinary people going about their everyday lives. Historians do not operate in a vacuum.
4.2 Drawing on the available evidence, historians can capture complexities, ambiguities, and contradictions. We can put into context the acts and omissions of people in the past – but without ever allowing understanding to become excusing or endorsing.
4.3 While neither historians, nor the sources and tools we use, are neutral, we do practise objectivity. Historians aim to be accurate, comprehensive, and consistent. This set of practices are less a scientific procedure and more a code of ethics. Our fellow historians around the world make sure we stick to it. We check each other’s scholarship both before and after it is published.
4.4 Watching historians at work and seeing what we can deliver has won over sceptical European publics. The German official histories debunked the myth that civil servants had been non-political. Far from being a whitewash, the Dutch report brought down the government. Swedish historians secured access to the files of the intelligence services. The Austrian museum received awards for how it explored the civil war of the 1930s as well as the Nazi years.
4.5 Trials identify individual guilt, not patterns, as historians are trained to do. Trials of individuals recognize only criminal guilt, not political or moral responsibility. If we are to prevent violence returning to Northern Ireland we owe it to ourselves to fully understand what happened in the conflict not one version of it.
4.6 A multi-disciplinary approach, including historical procedures, free from political interference, will produce a multi-narrative perspective. The model, as currently outlined in the Stormont Agreement, will not.
History, Reconciliation and Memorialisation
5.1 History aspires to arrive at an authoritative account of the past, regardless of the consequences for identity; recognises complexity and ambiguity; may revise existing narratives in light of newevidence (from archives, etc.); is constrained by archival materials; and can change in response to new information.
5.2 When compared with the percentage of Troubles-related deaths, memorials to civilians and the security services are seriously underrepresented. The CAIN database on Troubles related
memorials, from 2011, had 640 memorials listed. Of these, approximately 421 are located within the public space. Overwhelmingly these champion non-state actors.
5.3 One of the reasons this imbalance matters so much is that it has an outsized role in shaping how young people understand the Troubles. Stories, murals and commemorations are important sources of historical knowledge for young people, particularly those living in conflict areas.
5.4 Memorialisation today perpetuates conflict rather than promotes reconciliation.
5.5 Reconciliation is a long-term process and must not be directed at one actor in a conflict. It must include all participants. And my concern is the SHA proposals are, in fact, seriously unbalanced. Without archival history they will neither address the legacy of the past nor bring reconciliation in the future.
The Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition, History and the Teaching of the Northern Ireland Conflict in Schools
6.1 The Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT), was composed of 8 Independent Commissioners (of which I was one) and 7 political party Commissioners (2 DUP, 2 Sinn Fein, 1 SDLP, 1 UUP, 1 Alliance) that sat from 2016-20 It did reach agreement on teaching the history of the Northern Ireland conflict in schools. It found the current arrangements for the teaching of the history of Northern Ireland, inadequate for a society emerging from conflict. All Commissioners, including all the representatives of the political parties, signed off on the section relating to teaching the history of the Northern Ireland conflict.
6.2 The Council for Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) gives direction to what is taught in the Northern Ireland curriculum.
6.3 In History all young people aged 11-14, in considering ‘Mutual Understanding’ and issues of ‘Cultural Awareness’, learn about Irish history from 1600-1920. CCEA guidance permits each school additional flexibility to make decisions about how best to interpret and combine minimum
requirements so as to provide a broad and balanced curriculum that will prepare each young person for a rapidly changing world. Flexibility within the History curriculum means the Partition of Ireland is the only core topic that all young people have to study. A key aim of this topic is to: ‘Investigate the long and short term causes and consequences of the partition of Ireland and how it has influenced Northern Ireland today including key events and turning points.’
6.4 The history of Northern Ireland, including the Troubles, is only studied by young people who choose to study History at GCSE level (ages 14 - 16) where the options are Changing Relations: Northern Ireland and its Neighbours 1920-1949; or Changing Relations: Northern Ireland and its Neighbours 1965-1998.
6.5 FICT heard that education, and its role in aiding understanding of cultural diversity, emerged as a consistent theme throughout the Commission’s engagement process. For those who engaged in that process, a lack of mutual understanding was viewed as a major barrier to progress, and it was felt this was reflected in a lack of respect shown to the exploration, understanding and celebration of identity, culture and tradition within the education system. People, giving evidence to the Commission, highlighted a need to teach young people about relationships, respect, similarities and differences within Northern Irish society.
6.6 There was a recurring view expressed that the history curriculum was ‘not fit-for purpose’ in terms of promoting mutual understanding and a plurality of historical narratives. Some felt that the curriculum shied away from exploring the history of events that have shaped Northern Irish society, through to and including the conflict and the various political agreements over the last 30 years.
6.7 Reflecting upon the evidence before it, FICT found that many young people finish school without an understanding of their own cultural identity and of other communities within Northern Irish society. While it was acknowledged that the curriculum presently allows for culture, identity and tradition to be explored within schools, this did not appear to be applied consistently across all schools.
6.8 FICT recommended that the Department of Education, in conjunction with CCEA, institutes a core history unit running throughout Key Stage 3 (ages 11- 14). This would cover, for example, the Normans in Ireland to the Good Friday Agreement. The rest of the curriculum would remain flexible and devolved as at present.
Recommendations
It should be recognised that reconciliation is a process not an event.
That a process of historical clarification is necessary to promote political reconciliation within Northen Ireland.
A History of the Troubles should:
demonstrate their commitment to basic honesty and integrity rather than deceit; demonstrate an absence of willful distortions or omissions;
aspire to arrive at an authoritative account of the past; establish the context in which decisions were made;
recognise multi-narratives of the past from different communities; recognise complexity and ambiguity in the historical record;
demonstrate a commitment to accepting the possibility of revision of particular interpretations in the light of further evidence;
have access to all archives available including those of the State
An Authoritative School Text of the Troubles
Should recognise that Northern Ireland is a divided society still emerging from conflict despite the relative absence of violence
Should recognise that without an authoritative text of the conflict, school children are susceptible to narratives that perpetuate conflict in an environment which witnesses children educated in separate schools
Any school text dealing with the conflict must explore multiple narratives and a shared history within Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland; the development of key identities within Northern Ireland; and relationships within the island of Ireland and between Ireland and Britain.
February 2025
Thomas Hennessey has authored and co-authored several books on the history and politics of Ireland and Northern Ireland: A History of Northern Ireland, 1920-1996 (1997); Dividing Ireland: World War One and Partition (London: Routledge, 1998); The Northern Ireland Peace Process. Ending the Troubles? (Dublin: Gill & Macmillan/New York: St Martins Press 2000); Northern Ireland: the Origins of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Gill & Macmillan 2005); The Evolution of the Troubles 1970-72 (Irish Academic Press 2007); Hunger Strike. Mrs Thatcher’s Battle with the IRA 1980-81 (Irish Academic Press 2013); The First Northern Ireland Peace Process. Power-Sharing, Sunningdale and the IRA Ceasefires 1972-76 (Palgrave Macmillan 2015); and, all co-authored with Jonathan Tonge, Maire Braniff, James W McAuley, Clare Rice and Sophie A Whiting, The Democratic Unionist Party. From Protest to Power (2014); The Ulster Unionist Party. Country Before Party? (2019);The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. Between Unionism and Nationalism (2024)
