Although coming at it from very different angles, both peace activists of the nonviolent persuasion and paramilitaries view the legitimacy of state sanctioned violence as inadequate. Those of the nonviolent persuasion do not go along with the legitimacy of state sanctioned lethal force whereas paramilitaries feel that military-type action outside of the state is legitimate. Nonviolent activists would view both state sanctioned violence and paramilitary violence as immoral and/or unnecessary.
That is not to say that state forces should not be held to higher account than paramilitaries. In the North, the announcement of a long promised tribunal of enquiry to look at the circumstances of Pat Finucane’s killing had a reaction from some on the unionist and loyalist side that this was favouritism to republicans and discrimination against other victims. Leaving aside the fact that Pat Finucane as a lawyer represented loyalists as well as republicans, the state had long ago promised an enquiry, a promise it continually reneged on, and the particular circumstances of his murder – with very considerable issues of both state collusion and parliamentary ‘fingering’ of him – fully justifies such an enquiry.
More general questions of the legacy of violence remain, by paramilitaries as well as state. How do we deal with the very real issues for survivors and families of victims? Certainly not by sweeping it all under the carpet as the last British Conservative government tried to do with its Legacy Act (in order to protect former British soldiers and the state). The extent to which current Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn is moving away from that model is still being defined – and challenged.
However paramilitarism and militarism are still major issues in the North. Small republican paramilitary groups still exist and could pose a threat to individuals but they have very little support. However some loyalist paramilitary infrastructure has continued unbroken through the peace process and beyond; it is estimated that there are still well over ten thousand members of loyalist paramilitaries which is a lot – the PSNI has 6,300 officers and 2,200 support staff, in total certainly below the number of loyalist paramilitaries.
The extent to which loyalist paramilitaries are involved in extortion (such as protection rackets) and drug dealing varies but is very significant and a continuing blight on the North. There have been various attempts, more carrots than sticks, to encourage paramilitaries out of crime and militarism but they have largely been unsuccessful and there is also a certain amount of incredulity that, two and a half decades after the Good Friday Agreement, they still exist and still recruit. It is estimated that up to a third of organised crime has paramilitary links. The carrots and sticks need to have a time limit.
The failure of loyalism to gain political traction, in the way Sinn Féin did for republicanism, is certainly regarded as one factor in loyalist paramilitaries having a niche – while the DUP has often had an ambiguous relationship with militant and military loyalism, it cannot be regarded as adequately representing working class loyalism (e.g. on school selection where working class Protestant boys are the lowest achievers). But other factors are simply power, greed, and fear for the future of Northern Ireland.
A recent independent pro-unionist report from the ‘Northern Ireland Development Group’ addressed this whole issue. There are difficulties, obviously, and the report called for more carrots and sticks. Some of the authors stated “A clear distinction between ex-combatants, community workers and criminals is needed to bolster loyalists who are trying to move on, and to distinguish between them and those who want to use fear to maintain their own reputations and self-serving advantage.” (Irish Times 11/10/24). The attention given to the Loyalist Communities Council, representing the views of a variety of paramilitary groups, by some ministers has also caused anger; however it should be a question of what attention is given to them but whether what they say is justified – and you cannot attempt to ‘bring people in from the cold’ by ignoring them.
On a wider scale we need to challenge both paramilitarism and militarism. They might not be two sides of the same coin but they are both stuck in the same hole. Paramilitary and guerrilla fighters (a k a ‘terrorists) typically inflict harm and death in multiples of ten or a hundred; there are occasional exceptions such as 9/11 when the unit was thousands but that is not typical. Deaths and injuries from state forces are typically numbered in ten of thousands or even millions. And yet most of the time people accept the actions of states, even ones as egregious as Israel’s in Gaza where it has slaughtered upwards of 50,000 people and probably caused the deaths of several times that through the effects of the onslaught on health, nutrition, homelessness and fear.
Paramilitarism takes a military model and uses it for its own purposes within a state. Militarism threatens the globe, directly and indirectly through death, misuse of resources, its major contribution to global heating and pollution, and so on including the very real risk of nuclear annihilation. Humanity needs to move on. There are alternatives but militarism, with its associated symbols of statehood, appeal to politicians (and many other people besides) and they fail to even comprehend that there are alternatives, or examine what these are.
The possibilities of nonviolence are endless. They do require work and people but their costs would be tiny compared to the cost of armies and militarism. When will we start to learn?