Esmond Birnie: The proposition that Irish unity is inevitable must come with a caution as the very idea of 'inevitability' is a dangerous one

One benefit of the publicity which Mr Wallace Thompson has given to the proposition that Irish unity is inevitable is that it gives us a chance to explore this concept of historical inevitability (‘Ben Lowry: Far too much weight is being given to Wallace Thompson's view that Northern Ireland will leave the UK,’ May 11) .

The idea that history is on a very precise track to a pre-determined end and that we can work out most of the steps along that track is a very big idea and it has also proved a very bad one.

Before plunging into the depths of the philosophy of history, a few comments about the likelihood of a united Ireland.

Like everyone else, Mr Thompson is entitled to his view about this. This is in part an empirical question whereby we must all weigh up the evidence.

The range of opinion surveys may indicate some shift towards unity in recent years but that movement has probably been relatively small and within the bounds of the volatility usually shown by such measures.

As an economist I would point to the large fiscal transfer into Northern Ireland to run our public services.

By implication, unity could well be a painful process for taxpayers in the Republic of Ireland. Others, rightly, point to the various cultural benefits of being part of the larger, multinational unit the United Kingdom.

But in an important sense this is about more than a united Ireland: should we believe in the concept of historical inevitability? Plenty of people do. Every time someone tries to settle an argument by claiming “But you are on the wrong side of history”, they are claiming a secret knowledge, that they are privileged to know the way history is going but you do not.

Just over 200 years ago the German philosopher Hegel believed he could discern the inner spirit or propulsion within history and so he could tell the way things were going. At one point he even argued that one man, the Emperor Napoleon, personified that spirit of History (with a capital “H”).

Of course later came the retreat from Moscow and the Battle of Waterloo and so Hegel began to assume that history has culminated in the perhaps surprising form of the bureaucracy of the Prussian State.

Later on another German philosopher, Karl Marx, modified Hegel by assuming that economics and especially the struggle between classes was driving history through a predictable series of steps or stages. Those who could not accept Marx’s view of the plan of history, whether they be on the political right or left, were subject to his utter contempt.

In 20th century Russia, Lenin and Stalin took that historical certainty to its awful and bloody conclusion: through labour camp and purge those who were on the wrong side of history were buried underneath “progress”.

Interestingly, the other great force of totalitarian evil in the 20th century, Nazism, also toyed with historical inevitability: the Third Reich was to last for 1000 years.

The philosopher Isaiah Berlin was a very interesting character. Born of Jewish ethnicity in the Russian Empire in 1909, a witness to the 1917 Russian Revolution but then spending most of his life in England. Winston Churchill once famously confused Irving Berlin for Isaiah Berlin and perplexed the American composer by asking him questions about the meaning of history.

Why did Isaiah Berlin object so strongly to the notion of historical inevitability? He argued that if you tell people history must unfold according to a precise and known plan then you rob them not just of their freedom of action but deny their moral responsibility.

How many moral outrages were committed in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany because people had ceased to be moral agents and were doing what they believed historical destiny compelled them to?

In the same way, how many moral abominations happened here in Northern Ireland because people thought these served the historical destiny of Ireland or Ulster.

But, some might say isn’t the idea of historical inevitability ultimately a Christian idea? For sure, Christians can know what history’s end point will be: the return of Christ and his final victory.

I doubt if we can know the detailed plan or steps along the way to that point because if we could know these things then we would be able to know the mind of God regarding world history.

Old Testament prophets had such insight but it would be presumptuous to claim the same today.

​

Esmond Birnie is an economist and former MLA