The Progressive Unionist Party of Northern Ireland: A Left-Wing Voice in an Ethnically Divided Society
| Published date | 01 November 2010 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-856X.2010.00413.x |
| Date | 01 November 2010 |
| Author | Aaron Edwards |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The Progressive Unionist Party of
Northern Ireland: A Left-Wing Voice in
an Ethnically Divided Societybjpi_413590..614
Aaron Edwards
The Progressive Unionist party (PUP) was formed in the late 1970s and is one of the smallest
political parties in Northern Ireland, both in terms of its membership size and its share of the vote,
which translates into only a tiny number of elected representatives. Yet, supporters and critics alike
have marked it out as one of the most distinctive voices in Northern Irish politics—in the main
because of its democratic socialist ideology and its class-based character. This article examines the
PUP’s political programme, its membership and support base, its role in the peace process and its
relationship with illegal loyalist terrorist organisations. It does so by drawing on current debates in
the political science literature about ethnic parties in divided societies. Moreover, it focuses on the
often neglected relationship between ethnicity and class in the PUP in order to explain how the
party understands and contributes towards the peace process and democratic stability in Northern
Ireland.
Keywords: Progressive Unionist party; Northern Ireland; ethnic parties; class
It is essential that the PUP perseveres on the political scene. As a party, and
as a set of ideas and as a collection of individuals, the PUP represent
something bigger than one seat in the Stormont Assembly ... You repre-
sent a tradition in Northern Ireland’s politics that is not as often celebrated
as more divisive traditions. Yours is the voice of a distinction that is not
divisive. We all know which confessional ‘side’ most of your activists come
from. You are unashamedly for the continuation of the union with Great
Britain. But what makes you different from the other two big unionist
parties is your commitment to a vision of an articulate and progressive
working class playing its full role in the political life of Northern Ireland
(Peter Bunting, Assistant General Secretary, ICTU, 13 October 2007).
Introduction
This article examines the career of the Progressive Unionist party of Northern
Ireland (hereafter PUP) since its formation in 1979. It asks, despite all of the
available commentary pointing to the contrary, how the PUP has managed to
remain so politically resilient in light of its low electoral support. What is its real
contribution to the political and peace processes in Northern Ireland, and what can
this tell us about the nature of the party when we situate it within the broader
context of the study of left-leaning parties in ethnically divided societies? In
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-856X.2010.00413.x BJPIR: 2010 VOL 12, 590–614
© 2010 The Author.British Journal of Politics and International Relations © 2010
Political Studies Association
addressing these core objectives, the article is organised into three main parts. Part
one analyses the party’s ideology, membership and political career, drawing on the
available literature on ethnic parties to argue that the PUP is first and foremost an
ethnic-based party—rooted firmly in the Protestant unionist community—which
articulates a unique left-leaning political programme. Part two examines the PUP
from the perspective of a survey of the party’s membership, carried out by the
author at its 2007 annual conference,1and thereby offering an empirically informed
critique of the existing literature. Arguably, most available critiques of the party
have been advanced by sociologists—with political scientists generally conspicuous
by their absence—leading to a narrow disciplinary focus on the party’s identity and
less concern with its actual political significance in Northern Ireland’s so-called ‘ethnic
dual party system’ (Mitchell 1995). Finally, the article explains for the first time just
how the PUP is linked to two illegal loyalist terrorist groupings, the Ulster Volunteer
Force (UVF) and Red Hand Commando (RHC), detailing what implications such a
relationship has had for the party’s political development. The main argument put
forward here is twofold: that the PUP has been chronically under-researched and
under-theorised and this has led to a skewed understanding of its significance
vis-à-vis the political and peace processes in Northern Ireland.
The PUP’s Unique ‘Voice’
The development of the PUP since the loyalist paramilitary ceasefires in October
1994 is somewhat synonymous with the former leader of the party, David Ervine,2
who died unexpectedly in January 2007 (see BBC 2007a). Arguably Ervine was
representative of a distinctive working-class unionist voice within Northern Irish
politics that has proven considerably resilient over the past three decades, despite
the existence of deep-rooted ethno-national and religious divisions. It could even
be said that he personified his party’s brand of democratic socialism, while com-
municating it effectively to a wider audience. Like its former leader, the PUP views
its role in the ‘peace process’ in pragmatic terms—as that of a political vanguard,
providing leadership to the Protestant working class who have been abandoned by
‘traditional unionism’ (PUP 1979, 1985, 1996 and 2007a; McAuley 2004, 528–529).
Nonetheless, the PUP does not enjoy popular legitimacy in the eyes of the elector-
ate, nor does it command a significant share of the vote from within the Protestant
working-class community. While there are several plausible reasons for the party’s
poor electoral performance, it seems likely that ‘it is the structure of Ulster politics
that makes it easy for working-class Protestants not to support paramilitaries’
(Bruce 1992, 242), or any loyalist paramilitary-linked parties for that matter, which
remains the principal obstacle to its political advancement. Moreover, a further
complicating factor for small left-of-centre parties in Northern Ireland is the nature
of the party system itself, which is often characterised as ‘ethno-national-religious’
because ‘national identity and religious affiliation (often intertwined) are the most
important variables in terms of party choice’ (Tonge 2006, 167). Ten years after the
signing of the Belfast Agreement the party system remains unchanged and shows
little likelihood of realigning along left–right lines (Tonge 2006, 203).3
Notwithstanding its lack of popular endorsement supporters and critics alike have
marked the PUP out as one of the most distinctive voices in unionist and Northern
A LEFT-WING VOICE IN AN ETHNICALLY DIVIDED SOCIETY 591
© 2010 The Author.British Journal of Politics and International Relations © 2010 Political Studies Association
BJPIR, 2010, 12(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial