Why I Study History

The Relationship Between History and Policy

NUIG MA History Seminar Presentation, 27 March 2012 

 The appointment of a special board of eleven historians to help the government prepare appropriately for the upcoming Decade of Centenaries, including the Ulster Covenant and the Easter Rising, is evidence that the study of history is still of considerable importance in the running of a country. (Once I used to think that you would celebrate one of those and protest in whatever appropriate or inappropriate way at the other - and anyone who attempted to celebrate both was a hypocrite...but anyway.) 

Historians can assist in deconstructing conceptions of past occurrences which are open to different interpretations, they can examine current popular belief concerning topical issues and they can assess how 'our actions and thoughts are conditioned by the heritage of the past', and are thus not as valid, as rational, and as necessary as we believe they are. Quentin Smith says that 'the stories we tell about ourselves are always and unavoidable partial...it becomes the task of the historian to ensure that such stories are not uncritically accepted.' By doing this historians can, undoubtedly, make a valuable contribution to public policy: for example John Bew's work in examining the role of Ulster Presbyterians in the 1798 rebellion reminds one that the version of irrational, sectarian Unionism that exists in Northern Ireland today may not be the only interpretation of Unionism in existence, and thus encourages government to consider more deeply the original intentions of Unionism. My own study of Thomas Davis' version of a united Irish nation which firmly valued both Catholics and Protestants, and also of the Orange Order in Northern Ireland which became the final refuge of an increasingly alienated sector of Ulster society opened my understanding, and indeed developed my criticism, of policy development in Northern Ireland. 

 In such deconstruction however, caution must always be exercised as deconstruction must always be accompanied with some form of reconstruction. Stefan Berg's words, 'It seems wiser to assume that society would be better off with weak and playful identities rather than those underpinned by a strong sense of a common national past', are alarming; just as a human being needs a strong sense of self-identity to perform to his or her full potential, so too does a nation. Public policy formation should start with this identity; historians should not simply be given the task of justifying already-created unpalatable policies to make them appeal to the nation. Historians can take current situations and make analogical comparisons with similar occurrences in the past, thus educating those who formulate public policy. 

One needs to be aware of the danger of looking for direct parallels in the past and thus predicting the future; successful use of history to guide current policy development will take into account the otherness of the past, the uniqueness of the present, and will at the same time 'reclaim some of the richness of past experiences'. A good example of this is Christopher Andrews examination of the 'Holy Terror'; he outlines that while US intelligence believes that the current war on terrorism, sparked by 9/11, is dealing with an entirely new adversary and thence requires unprecedented methods4, Early Modern Europe was also a society plagued by Muslim fanaticism in the form, for example, of Barbary ghuzat who saw themselves as religious warriors. A historical examiniation of this phenomenon ought to increase awareness for those involved in fighting against it. Likewise the study of economic history can increase understanding of the current recession; a recent study I carried out on the development of Antwerp in the sixteenth century outlined how the entrepreneurship of immigrants into the area was encouraged by the traditional stress put on 'values such as achievement, competition, toleration, industry, thrift and calculation'; these values had created a pro-enterprise culture'. As today's policy-makers seek to encourage entrepreneurship in Ireland, a consideration of successful enterprise cultures would no doubt be useful. 

NUIG MA class 2011-2012

 Personally I believe that historians have a vital role to play in the formation of public policy; much depends upon their own historical beliefs however, and it would be hoped that in Ireland those who have remained loyal to the essence of Irish identity would be the ones who have the greatest impact on the policy formation.

The Class Rep Fiasco: Is there a Solution?

published as an opinion piece in the latest edition of NUIG's student paper

At the last Student Council, held on the 28th of February, no decisions could be made because the meeting did not reach quorum: the SU has 320 class reps on its records for this academic year, yet not even 16% could make it that evening. We waited patiently in the shadowy expanse of the Cairnes Theatre and slowly a few faithfuls straggled in through the creaking doors. But it wasn’t enough.
It wasn’t that we didn’t have anything to discuss. There were the troublesome ‘non-NUIG related Rag Week’ events to be considered and there were important motions relating to the Irish economic crisis and a Code of conduct for Exec members to be voted upon. However we ended up having simply an informal discussion which was interesting, but absolutely useless as nothing concrete was achieved, and everything was postponed.

It looks like Class Reps just aren’t interested in the Students Union anymore. The question is, were they ever interested? The Students Union represents the students at university level, and the work of class representatives – the real workers at grassroots level - is essential to an effective democratic process. Only the conscientious, dedicated engagement of class reps with their Students Union will achieve any sort of positive change in the quality of life we experience on the campus of NUIG. The Students Union are our voice at the board meetings, at the academic councils, at Udaras na hOllscoil. Without us, the 320 Class Reps, the Students Union is not a representative Union, but rather a group of individuals who will make decisions based on what they assume we want – or in some cases unfortunately on what they want.

Recently NUIG’s Education Officer Conor Healy, aware of the alarming disinterest of class reps in engaging with their union, carried out a survey in an attempt to identify the root of this problem. He discovered that most classes were quite happy with their class reps; ‘they organised class parties, they worked with lecturers when problems arose and performed their day-to-day tasks well’. However a lack of information about and awareness of the SU was highlighted; reps felt that they weren’t integrated into the Union and that attending SU Council was not relevant to them. The Council was also deemed as being ‘not fun’; meetings were described as ‘fragmented’ and reps said they wouldn’t go back because they were afraid of all the arguing that went on.

So the system needs to be changed; Healy mentioned that the idea of having two reps per class – academic and social – might be an option. He also stated that the role needs to be ‘glamourised’. ‘In NUIG a show of hands elects the class rep and the main attraction of the job is the hoody. In UCD by contrast elections are a big deal, with flyering, manifestos – real campaigning goes on and a proper election is held. Reps get discounted tickets to SU events but the attraction really is in the prestige.’
But will mere glamorisation and more engagement from the SU change our failed system? Reps that are ‘afraid’ of some animated discussion may need more than a ticket to the SU Session to entice them into the dangerous war arena that is the SU Council. Some universities in England offer financial incentives for attending meetings; others offer free print credit, ECTS credits, and the Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand even offers scholarships to those who have done exceptional work. But even if such progressive steps were taken, would the situation here improve?
If a vigorous discussion frightens a student representative and a rousing argument prevents you from attending Student Council ever again, the problem is not that the job isn’t glamorous enough. The problem is that the majority of our class representatives just don’t care, disrespect democracy and despise debate (except if it’s about the abolishment of Rag Week, of course). Strong words I know, but unfortunately true. Apathy reigns supreme in our university culture at the moment and empty SU councils simply prove this point; the challenge now lies with the SU to address this problem, make itself more relevant to the student population and teach us all by its own actions how important active, conscientious participation in student democracy is.

NUI Galway's SU passes No Platform Policy while Survey gives Startling Result

On the 7th November the Student Council was presented with three important motions; a motion to provide a statement of solidarity with Occupy Galway, a motion supporting a No Platform ban by the SU, and a motion regarding how SU officers present at SU council. After discussion, all three motions were passed.

The No Platform motion proposed that the SU will be mandated to automatically oppose any invitation to members of listed organisations to speak at this university. SU officers shall be prohibited from sharing a public platform with members of the listed organisations. Organisations are to be added and removed by ballot at class reps council. The listed organisations included the BNP, The National Front, Combat 18, Column 88, MPAC Ireland and Hizb ut – Tahir. After a short discussion on the motion, it was passed with an overwhelming majority of 55 – 2.

The idea of a No Platform policy originated in the United Kingdom, where it has been adopted into the Constitution of the National Union of Students; it was instituted in the 1990s to prevent members of the BNP to stand for SU elections. Some universities have decided not to endorse this policy, including the University of East Anglia and the University of Bath; the University of Durham disaffiliated from the NUS in 2010 after a cancelled multiculturalism event involving two BNP speakers led to thousands of students joining an internet campaign dubbed 'Durham University Students for Freedom of Speech'.

Essentially the policy proposes to ban members of fascist and/or racist organisations from speaking on the NUIG campus. Will O'Brien, Equality Officer, who proposed the motion, says that such a policy is essential in Ireland because 'we don't have a far-right extremist wing, and we need to do everything we can to maintain this.' He commented, 'Nothing good comes from it, it destroys countries and takes decades to get rid of.'

Dealing with accusation that such a policy violates free speech, Will said that the platform being denied is not a right but a privilege. 'It is not an entitlement for everybody. Fascism and racism are fundamentally opposed to democracy, and simply are incapable of being part of the democratic conversation.' He is adamant that it is of vital importance that such ideas be refused admission to campuses, as they bring nothing but damage and ruin.

At the Class Rep meeting, one student raised questions about how the No Platform policy connected to the idea of tolerance that is purported to be of paramount importance in today's society. She said, 'How far will this idea of banning certain speakers and organisations go? On the university campus of all places, are we not professing to provide a marketplace of ideas, free discourse and discussion? Instead of banning certain groups, we should educate students against them and then encourage them to protest and express their beliefs; instead of forbidding, we should promote the opposite to facism and racism in such a way that students will see absolutely no attraction in such ideologies. In facilitating our version of tolerance we need to be careful we are not becoming intolerant.'

A survey carried out by SIN after the meeting amongst students revealed that out of 154 students, 96% reported that their class reps had not consulted them concerning the motion. 48% said they would have voted against the No Platform proposal, which is sizeable advance on the 3.6 % who voted No at the Council meeting. One class rep reported that he received the motions on the day of the vote and did not have time to consult his class. Other reps did not receive the motions at all and were only introduced to them at the meeting.

These results put a question over the way in which the SU is carrying out its duties respecting class reps and correct student representation. There are clear administration difficulties as well as problems guaging correctly the opinion of the whole student body. The No Platform policy is a very important issue and requires substantial consideration and debate, which it unfortunately has not received in this instance.