Politics

Compare for me the courage of a writer to the courage of a political leader. Is it the same or are they qualitatively different?

They are, I think, qualitatively different, and indeed, they are to some extent antagonistic. I found that if you're in politics as I was, in active electoral politics for eight years, though I tried to tell the truth, that was qualified by the things I was trying to do. I was trying to influence opinion about Northern Ireland, which was the subject about which I cared most. I knew that I was taking an unpopular line on that, but I knew that if I added other unpopular lines I would weaken that one. So when there was a debate in Ireland as to whether to join what was then called the Common Market, a majority of the party wanted no part of the Common Market, or thought they didn't. I liked the idea of joining the larger world and getting away from our isolation. And I said to myself, "Well now, if I say that, I'm destroying my influence on what I care most about, Northern Ireland." So I went along a bit. I made a couple of ritual noises which I felt on the side I didn't believe in, and began at that point to feel a bit sick and then shut up about the Common Market. I was beginning to feel that it was stifling in there and that I'd be better out of it. But then the decision was taken out of my hands. In any case, I lost my seat, something which I was shaken by at the time, but after about six months I realized that this had saved me, that I was now free to speak my whole mind without looking over my shoulder, as I have been ever since I was liberated by the unintentionally kind decision of the electorate.

Characterize for us your contribution to the discussion of Northern Ireland. Do you think you had your greatest impact in the ideas you brought forward or in the fact that you were in a government and able to act on them?

Certainly I had more impact in this area out of active politics than in it, because I could formulate what I actually thought clearly. But there's a paradox here. I undoubtedly did impinge on public opinion. I didn't change the nationalists' demand, but I did induce the nationalists to attenuate their demand. And the paradox there is that by attenuating it, it became more formidable. The test came when a nationalist conference had set three objectives, the least of which being joint administration. Margaret Thatcher rejected all three in her famous "No, No, No" speech. Then John Hume had the really brilliant idea of formulating a demand which was less than any of the three, that is, that the Republic of Ireland should be consulted by the British about their policies in Northern Ireland and any new developments, and so on, thus giving the nationalists a toe in the door and leaving the unionists -- this was not my intention -- firmly on the outside because they didn't have a toe in the door anymore. And the person who really became the most influential politician in the island of Ireland and in relation to Northern Ireland was John Hume, who had that brilliant idea of attenuating the demand, which I had, as I came to see, unfortunately stimulated.

So that in the world of action, unintended consequences come to haunt you.

Oh, indeed they do, indeed they do. Most vividly.

After this amazing life of shaping ideas, being in politics, going back to writing as a journalist, what is your view of the role that intellectuals should properly play in political life?

I think the intellectual, if he is to do his function honestly, either will have to be on the margin of actual practical politics or, having been in practical politics, as is my case, will have to move to the margin or beyond it. Because if you're immersed in politics you can't, as I found, tell the truth without hesitation. And you can become, as many politicians do become, a habitual and easy liar. You say what would serve the purpose of the moment as long as it serves that purpose, then you change the tune. You can't dismiss that altogether, it is part of practical politics and it's especially part of democratic politics, which is the most benign form of politics we know. I'm not knocking those who stay in politics for behaving in those ways, but I think there is a role for people who are outside. That should be the function of the intellectual, to think as best they can and say what they think they find, and modify that when they find the need to do it, not because of pressure but because of their own view of developing events. I think the intellectual in relation to politics is something like the Greek chorus, he's outside the action but he tells you quite a lot about the action.

Next page: Nationalism