Friday, October 10, 2008
Just where is Irish Republicanism at these days?
Many claim it - from Sinn Féin to Fianna Fail to the SDLP and a wealth of smaller groups including RSF, IRSP, Workers Party, éirígí and the 32CSM (sorry if I left you out). To address the question requires a definition of what Republicanism is and that isn’t something easily agreed on.
It used to be reasonably easy to define - primarily those demanding complete independence from Britain and the establishment of a Republican government. After that various elements had differing significance for various parties:
· Socialism - pretty much a perquisite
· Secularism
· The 1916 Proclamation
· The 1919 Democratic Programme
· Articles 2 & 3
After the GFA the definitions altered for many with FF overseeing the removal of Articles 2 & 3 from the 26 county constitution, previously the foundations of state Republicanism; SF accepting and enthusiastically promoting an ‘Agreement’ based on partition and enshrining the ‘consent principle’ (Unionist veto) as the way forward, now for them the only way to unity despite often declaring it ‘not a Republican document’.
Did the nature of Republicanism suddenly change when the ‘Agreement’ came about? Has Republicanism changed from outright rejection of British influence in Ireland to working within,or supporting from outside, partitioned structures in the north of Ireland and no guarantee of future unity never mind the Socialist Republic? Has constitutional Nationalism become Republicanism? Or has traditional Republicanism ceased to exist for many and been sidelined?
These are not unique Irish questions in modern politics as the meanings of ‘Left’ and ‘Socialism’ are facing attempted redefinition in popular consciousness. Topics on Splintered Sunrise raised this as an
attempt by those in certain movements, who had always been opposed to Socialism, attempting to set acceptable limits on where political discourse lies by defining themselves as the ideology and more traditional views as beyond the pale.
Is similar occurring within Republicanism? Is the claim to ownership from FF, SF and the SDLP from positions closer to those normally viewed as constitutional nationalism trying to limit where acceptable discourse on Irish politics can be held? Is there a move to the centre and a fire walling of the approved limits for debate? Is the traditional view on Republicanism being treated as abnormal?
As Socialism, also claimed by FF, SF and the SDLP, takes a backseat in the policies and actions of government in Ireland and those declaring it involve themselves in privatisation, strike-breaking, non-unionised labour promotion and other policies more often associated with the right have the twin and interlinked foundations of Republicanism/Socialism been distorted into something else?
Of course there are other smaller groups still proclaiming to be truly Republican, like those proclaiming true Socialism elsewhere but is their form of Republicanism and Socialism a thing of the past? Can ideologies really alter through time? Can definitions change? Or are some not facing the fact they have changed while the ideology remains unaltered?
So where is Republicanism in modern Ireland? Certainly not where it was before.
Mark McGregor @ 07:07 PM
you are making the basic mistake of regarding the provos as republicans. they never were. they were catholic defenders. accept that interpretation and it becomes very easy to see how they accepted GFA and everything that accompanies it.
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 07:25 PMI think it is fair to say that Irish Republicanism is located in Sinn Féin and has been for some time.
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 07:27 PMTugann sin uilig tinneas cinn domhsa. Tá morán staidéir de dhith.
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 07:27 PM......... ach aontaím le jackdutch.
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 07:29 PMI think it’s fair to say that militant republicanism is just a disease of the mind that afflicts the shallow, cold and antichristian.
It has more in common with George Bush than Jesus Christ.
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 07:42 PMThere are 12 letters in your name John, is that one for every Apostle?
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 07:47 PMSo by accepting the principle of consent Sinn Fein forfeit the right to describe themselves as Republicans and prove they were only after equality all the time?
Why did the United Irishmen advocate republicism rather than (for example) a restored Irish monarchy? Was it because they recognized that only the absence of monarchy could allow true equality to all religious and secular traditions in Ireland. How come “true” republicans now get to define themselves by their obliviousness to the position of unionists or their willingness to violently suppress it.
“Socialism - pretty much a perquisite”
How so? Can Republicanism not be bourgeois or even christian democratic. Plenty of secular republics across Europe seem to be. Why shouldn’t Republicanism be about personal autonomy and reponsibility as well as the right to participation. Why shouldn’t a republican economic policy be about the encouragement (by of worker participation through shareholding and the reduction of external unaccountable capital (by treating interest as a distribution of profit rather than an expense for example), or about rights of worker participation through corporate boards (maybe not a bad thing if you’re trying to keep wage claims relatistic as demand disappears). These aren’t neccessarily socialist. They may even be Thatcherite. I’m not sure how the infantilising and disempowering effects of nationalisation and municipal socialism neccessarily denote republicanism.
Isn’t Republicanism strongest where the demand for democratic involvement and accountability is strongest.
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 07:49 PMRepublican Stones
You’re way out if you think that Christ in our context would have twelve apostles. That wouldn’t be scripturally accurate at all.
But you describe the republican well: all pervading knowledge about nothing like the Satanic God of the Old Testament. Funny how Gerry Adams has that Adam in his name.
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 08:05 PMI think an important turning point was the Civil War, after which the republican label became increasingly identified with an idea of legitimacy through continuity that was at odds with the idea of popular sovereignty that supposedly underlay it.
That kind of ‘traditional republicanism’ was a dead end. By comparison, the pro-agreement position of Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein and the SDLP has the huge republican merit of having the support of the Irish people.
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 08:44 PMIrish Republicans murder people whose political opinions they disagree with, then lie about having done that.
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 09:04 PMRepublicans have to get back to that spirit of the United Irishmen, which ironically was led by protestants.
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 09:08 PMPercy for our leader!
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 09:18 PMSurely republicanism is what people do without Lizzie Windsor herself interfering? I don’t see her or her majestic government showing much real interest.
Or is local ‘Republicanism’ now just short for catholic gaelic separatism with attitude? Or a pretentious way of saying prods go home? Cultural cleansing with an enlightenment mask on? The trouble with the word on its own is that it need not respect human rights very much at all.
I think that the squabbles at the assembly is all there is. Irish men and women having to trust those associated with bigotry and murder enough to do democratic politics, that very republican thing.
Would we really be doing SF any favours to give them a justice ministry and have them have to prosecute former IRA members. Could they, would they? Or jail loyalist paramilitaries?
All citizens should respect the state, you see.
Peter Robinson may be doing more for Irish Republicanism than the Gerries.
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 09:22 PMThank you Ann,
I’m 1/2 apple 1/2 orange, so I might be your huckleberry.Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 09:26 PMThe Dail always was and still is a democratic institution.
DeValera and his supporters couldn’t (well, wouldn’t) accept the democratic decision to ratify the Treaty and launched a bloody civil war wherein great men from both sides perished. DeValera belatedly accepted democratic principles.
Republicanism, true republicanism, with acceptance of democratic values is to be found in the Dail.Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 09:35 PMjoeCanuck, if you hold down Alt Gr while pressing the vowel you get a síneadh fada on the vowel. Mar shampla - Dáil
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 09:42 PMTo digress slightly. Do any of you McCooeys know where ‘Church of The sacred Heart, Belfast Urban 10’ is?
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 09:46 PMThanks, p. I went through this sometime ago with someone else. But it no longer works (N.A. keyboards are slightly different). I’ll have to fiddle again to make it work.
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 09:48 PMThanks for trying, joe. Respect,man.
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 10:01 PMI know I bang on about this but I’m a unionist and a republican.
I just wish someone was offering me a genuine republic instead of some petty little fenian fiefdom, I’d vote for the real deal.Here’s something else I have never figured out about the shinners.
This is a party that alone amongst all the other parties in the Uk is elected to stand on a republican platform, and yet they meekly accept their disenfranchisement from the political establishment for refusing to take an oath to the monarch.
Surely this ban on them participating in the Commons chamber is a clear breach of human rights since they get elected as republicans?
They could only win a massive propaganda victory by challenging this ban but they don’t do so.
So how republican are they really?Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 10:21 PMTAFKABO,
There’s an interesting passage in Owen McGee’s book on the IRB, that suggests they were interested in working with English republicans on a federal basis at one time, but gave up on the idea because they recognised the strength of the status quo in Britain.
Unionism and monarchism are two sides of the same early modern British settlement, and nationalism and republicanism are two sides of the same post-French revolution challenge to it.
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 10:41 PMSlightly off topic, but do you think the left will be able to take serious advantage of the current economic turmoil? Or is it a case of the status quo, enduring recession and reform of financial institutions?
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 10:50 PMI think the militancy of the last 40 years(while understandable and it did serve a purpose) has broken down any hopes of a United Irishmen style approach for a while yet. But I do feel the way forward is through true republicanism and socialism and cultivating a genuine affinity between the working class of every sect. Only when this is being actively promoted will we be on our way to a true Irish Republic.
Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 11:12 PM“I just wish someone was offering me a genuine republic instead of some petty little fenian fiefdom, I’d vote for the real deal. “
Good for you TAF, sadly there’s too much “Brits Out” in Republicanism, and not enough “Prods in”.
The old war mentality needs to become a peace mentality.
Some of us are on to it buddy ;)Posted by on Oct 10, 2008 @ 11:19 PMGiven that there were more handlers employed in the various British intelligence services in NI than there were active members of PIRA to ‘handle’ at any one time (400), with the British Army’s FRU alone employing 100+ handlers, you can be sure that where ‘republicanism’ is north of the border is exactly where the British intelligence services want it to be, i.e. renouncing the principle of self-determination for those who are Irish and renouncing their right to live in an Irish nation-state, accepting the legitimacy of British rule, and undermining Irish nationalism in order to promote British nationalism under the guise of ‘parity of esteem.’ Insofar as there is even a slight risk of Irish unity occurring as a result of the GFA, the contingency has been provided for by the de facto extension of political ‘constitution’ that underpins that pro-British enclave to cover all of the island (and good luck with that), reuniting the island not as an Irish nation-state but as joint British-Irish entity that ‘republicans’ are to be mobilised by their controllers to sell as being the new republican ideal. It’s true that you can kill the man but not the idea, so the new black is to grant ownership of the idea to a particular bunch of puppets and then remodel the idea so it is the total opposite of the old idea. Obfuscating ends with means, you make them believe that removing the border is the end in itself rather than the means to an end so that it the old end was a 32-county Irish nation state and the means to that end is removing the border, the new end becomes removing the border and the means becomes accepting a joint British-Irish dominion. Much like Irish history was censored as policy lest the nation be encouraged to support PIRA, now that PIRA is defunct, that policy continues with the new bogus justification for the censorship being a desire not to offend unionists who now have the PoC to vote against unity with those who offend them. ‘Republicans’ in NI are just puppets of British intelligence, utter quislings.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 12:35 AM
