Learning From a Terrorist

It would seem unthinkable in America to, rather than execute a man responsible for numerous terrorist or extremist actions, elect that man to public office.  Those in the US might find such a concept unthinkable in the Western World, and that the only way this could be possible in ANY country is if that country were some sort of evil totalitarian regime.

So I would like to introduce you to a government the locals call Stormont.  This government is led by two men with equal power, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (The FM represents the majority population and the DFM the minority population however, as stated, they share equal power).  The FM in the 80's led about 500 people in a protest that involved attacking police and police stations in its wake.  During a trial involving another violent incident the judge described him as an extremist.  The DFM was involved with terrorist activity at a young age having led the youth wing of a major terrorist organization.  Later this man was in a major leadership role withing that organization and was arrested while possessing hundreds of pounds of explosives as well as several thousand rounds of ammunition.  The difference is that these two men were, and in some ways still are, on different sides of a centuries old conflict.  The difference is that because they are in Stormont they are fulfilling a part of a powersharing agreement that is bringing peace to their region.

Naturally if you know anything about me you know I'm talking about Northern Ireland but I think it deserves to be said that while that region still isn't all sunshine, puppies, happiness and rainbows it is getting better and not because the terrorists and extremists were all killed, but rather because they went into politics.  Don't let the photo above of them smiling with the President fool you, they still don't get along but they know that violence won't solve anything because they've tried it.  I'm not some American with head in the clouds romantic ideas of hands across the baricades rhetoric, I've spent a good deal of time learning about Irish history and simply feel that such a history, as well as such a present, has a great deal to say about the human condition.

I recently started reading Killing Rage by Eamon Collins in which Mr. Collins writes of his time in the Provisional IRA, the spirit of being caught up in this greater cause that began to feel like it may not be so great afterall.  I found several quotes in his introduction striking, but this one particularly so:
(contents of brackets and change of typeface for emphasis were added by me)

"... I do not want to see another death in pursuit of this[/an] abstract concept.

I no longer believe in Utopian solutions to complicated and intractable problems. One person's Utopia usually means another person's hell.  We live in a state of uncertainty, not just in Northern Ireland, but by virtue of being human. What I have tried to do over the last decade is to subject my former beliefs to ruthless scrutiny. Instead of searching for ways to confirm my beliefs, I have searched for ways to prove them false. When, after dispassionate examination, you cannot prove your beliefs false, then perhaps you are on the way to discovering some sort of truth." (pg 6)

Earlier on the page Collins comments specifically referring to the Catholic and Protestant populations of Northern Ireland though it can easily be applied in a more universal manner to simply say that

'violence separates us from those with whom we have the most in common- those with whom we are placing ourselves in direct opposition.' 

Think of all those stories of people who grew up in segregated areas whether it was racial, religious, class, etc.  Why is it that the seeming concern of a prejudiced parent is not that something bad might happen to their child if they mixed with the other side, the concern more frequently seems to be that their child might actually like "those people" and we just can't have that now can we?  Maria Elena encountered racial and religious tension when she married Buddy Holly, Bono's parents encountered the Protestant/Catholic tension.  Isn't that terrifying? What if a Cougar fan isn't all that different from a Husky fan... worse yet what if a Yankees fan has something (other than baseball) in common with a Red Sox fan?  Republicans could get along with Democrats? (or... gasp! Marry one another? Heavens no, that might produce a child like me, it's highly unrecommended.) What if one who espouses a Pro-Life ideology finds out that a person who espouses Pro-Choice positions does so because they see it as a way to actually reduce abortions and despise the thought of abortion just as much as the most ardent Pro-Lifer?

Goodness!

We might have dialogue.

Why on earth would we want that?