The necessity to create a viable and secure political, social, cultural and economic environment that would allow people to exercise their rights continues to be the primary concern in the search for peace. Of late, the vicious cycle of bloodshed that Nagas are perpetuating upon themselves is threatening to jeopardize the very initiatives that seek to enable a process aimed to bridge understanding; and perhaps nurture a common ground that would create opportunities to build consensus for a viable and just political future.
Some months ago, when Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams sat side by side for the first time in history to announce to the world that they had agreed to forge a power-sharing coalition, Peter Hain, British Secretary of State remarked ‘We all saw something today that people never, ever through would happen.’ Indeed, many had never thought that they would ever come together, leave alone arrive at a consensus. The union of Paisley and Adams was seen as a big step towards addressing their common political agenda with Britain, while enabling their own constituencies, which are polarized along faith and political lines; an opportunity to come to terms with their past and to build a new future.
The historic agreement between the Unionist and the Sinn Fein was perceived as encouraging and it implied that at the end of the day the common aspiration of the Irish people needed to be respected and upheld. For so long the division between the two groups were splitting the Irish people along deeply entrenched and polarized lines, it only further enabled the British government to strengthen their grip over the ‘north of Ireland.’ This power sharing agreement was therefore not only pragmatic, but is also seen as empowering them to negotiate with Britain from a position of strength.
The process of consensus-building is a critical approach in building understanding between conflicting parties together because it dwells largely on the future well-being of a people. A consensus approach has been more successful when it comes to addressing ‘intra-conflicts’ because it does not demand that one group should give up their individual identity for the other. Rather it emphasizes on a series of dialogue between the groups and to recognize the contributions of the other and to acknowledge that they do need to work with each other if they are to achieve their common objective. The process of consensus building is directed towards creating a common political vision, which becomes the broad framework on which the basis is laid upon.
This intent was quite clearly reflected by Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams in their statements. For instance, Paisley stated that ‘We must not allow our justified loathing of the horrors and tragedies of the past to become a barrier to creating a better and more stable future for our children.’ He went on to add that ‘In looking to that future, we must never forget those who have suffered during the dark period from which we are, please God, now emerging, We owe it to them to craft the best possible future.’ These sentiments were reiterated by Adams who affirmed that ‘The relationships between the people of this island have been marred by centuries of discord, conflict, hurt and tragedy. ... Now there’s a new start, with the help of God.’
Consensus-building as an approach allows the space where new beginnings can be made. It enables a society to move forward in an entirely new spirit and also empowers them to address historical wrongs in a positive approach of tolerance and understanding with compassion and grace. Time will tell how far they are able to uphold the spirit of dialogue and really engage on contentious issues with the intent on building consensus that will shape the destiny of their future. While Paisley and Adams are only just two individuals, what is remarkable is the fact that their ability to set aside their differences has provided an opportunity for the Catholics and Protestants as well to come together as one nation and work in consensus for their future.
Like the Irish people, the Naga history too has been marred by tragedies and injuries caused both from within and without. Is it therefore possible for Nagas to learn from the Irish experience and create the space that will persuade all the groups to engage in a process of consensus-building? If the Irish can muster the will and the heart to arrive at a consensus in spite of their divided past, why cant the Nagas? There is no doubt that by agreeing to work towards a consensus and developing better relations and understanding amongst ourselves, it will give the healing process a chance to succeed, while simultaneously strengthening the Nagas in the pursuit to live as a dignified and independent people.
