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
Michael McDowell considers himself a committed Irish Republican and who am I to say he isn’t.
The Irish Republic is there for one and all, not just Socialists, 1916 devotees, all-islanders and the rest.
To be honest, when I think of what it means to be a “Republican” right now I think of Brian Lenihan’s budget speech next week and all the pain that it will entail.
Sure I think about what sort of Republic I want but I don’t waste any time wondering whether somebody does or does not “qualify” as a Republican.
Yours,
Joe SouthernerPosted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 12:38 AMI think where we read republicanism we should imply “irish republicianism”, rather than engage in petty nitpicking.
It’s certainly a difficult subject to pin down. I don’t believe anyone group can claim to own the idealogy but it rests in the heart of ever irish woman and man longing to be free.
Secularism is a large part of it surely. A peaceful and free nation free from religious intolerance is a core component of republicanism.
But the socialism? That is not central, certainly ireland has drifted rightwards economically, although become much more liberal socially. However I do not believe that this fair calling should be tied to any specific coordinates on the political compass. The isle of tolerance and freedom should encompass the political beliefs of all, encouraging healthy debate discussion.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 02:42 AMSecularism? Remind me what happens at 6pm on RTÉ?
This is a very interesting post, but again it lacks an acceptance of the reality that really the campaign for all-Ireland indepdence has been, with only minimal (and decreasing) exceptions, rooted in Gaeldom and Catholicism. Is that not the crux of the problem?
(And those of you thinking “that ‘unionist’/Protestant would say that, wouldn’t he?” are just proving my point...)
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 12:03 PMAh, mainstream Irish Republicanism has become way too middle class, too ‘bourgeois’ north and south, it has lost touch with the working classes and the core values of the 1798ers! Too much wrapped up in their cosy homes, foreign holidays, 4x4’s, Mercedes, etc… Guilty are FF, FG, Labour, SDLP, and the Sinners in a way! (James Connolly is rolling in his grave too).
The Working Classes have been somewhat abandoned while the more Militant Socialist Republicans prey on their sensibilities. Guilty of exploiting the people are RSF, IRSP, Workers Party, éirígí , 32CSM and the Sinners in a way! The hard militant stance of such parties is very off putting no doubt to most folk who are moderate.Maybe these credit crunch times might have a sobering effect on sincere Irish Republicans who might rediscover the ethos of the 1798 radicals. I don’t mean have another rebellion, but the grasp the very ideology of inclusiveness and fair play. Probably nothing more noble than the Presbyterians, Protestants, Catholics and Disenters of the United Irishmen who made a stand for the Irish Nation and the rights of all her people in 1798. Republicans today should go back to basics. Take a lead form the American founding fathers too as what Tone, Drennan, McCraken & Co did. (BTW The USA today has lost it’s way too!)
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 12:20 PMYee gods, not more of the ‘spirit of 98’ crap. The United Irishmen is a myth, or at best a failed project.
Republicanism in Ireland has always been taited by a significant element of sectarianism; or were the 1798 Wexford atrocities a ‘mistake’ like the more recent examples, La Mon, Enniskillen etc?
My family arrived in Ireland in the early 1600s, yet republicanism would still demand that I ‘go home’. To them I am a planter, a foreigner and a brit.
Until republicans realise what their message of ‘brits out’ means to those who share this space republicanism will continue to divide; and an ‘Ireland of Equals’ will remain a falsehood.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 01:05 PM‘My family arrived in Ireland in the early 1600s, yet republicanism would still demand that I ‘go home’. To them I am a planter, a foreigner and a brit.’
Sorry but thats utter shite. Seeking an end to British governance over part of your country does not mean seeking the removal of those who describe themselves as british. The term planter, brit etc etc are just the other side of the fenian,taig coin which everyone has been guilty of at least once in their life. Through continually spouting this mistaken belief you show how ignorant you are, nevermind forgetting the thousands of people from Britain living in the republic quite happily.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 02:03 PMSlievenanee -
Obviously you don’t understand the ideals of the United Irishmen! Given your Anglocentric education……Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter united etc …is well lost on you!
Besides, folk in NI who are haughtily proud of their planter history, the conquest and submission of Ireland by Old Blighty, who publically demonstrate this pride every year at the likes of the 12th, have no will at all to share in the Irish Nation, for their loyalty lies with England and Britain. Any words of a United Ireland is well lost on them and you too!
Since partition, an Northern ‘Ireland of Equals’ was non existant when the British Unionists held the reigns of power!Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 02:16 PMthe campaign for all-Ireland indepedence has been, with only minimal (and decreasing) exceptions, rooted in Gaeldom and Catholicism. Is that not the crux of the problem?
I think your under-estimating the importance of the Protestant contribution to republicanism. A list of significant Protestant republicans would be a very long one, especially under the broad definition that Mark uses (I think rightly) at the start of this thread.
I think that contribution has been fundamental, so much so that it’s hard to imagine what Ireland would be like without it.
Republicanism may have been tainted by sectarianism as Slievenanee says, but sectarianism was fundamental to the 18th century political settlement of which unionism is a defence.
Given that Britain is a much more secular society than either part of Ireland, its remarkable the extent to which it has been unable to move beyond that political settlement.
Ireland is a more secular society than it would be without republicanism, the UK is a less secular society than it would be without unionism.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 02:23 PM“Ireland is a more secular society than it would be without republicanism”
.....and here’s to that!
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 02:51 PMTom
Frankly, that’s like saying that the contribution of Catholics to Unionism “should not be underestimated” because the first Lord Chief Justice of NI was Catholic, or because there was a Catholic Chief Constable, or whatever.
If the role is “fundamental”, can you explain why scarcely a solitary elected Protestant in contemporary NI is an “Irish Republican” (any definition)?
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 03:09 PMIJP
No, that’s mindless whataboutery. Protestants have not just been Republicans, not just within the system it produced - they’ve been at the absolute centre of it, providing much of the intellectual drive, way, way out of proportion to overall numbers. To that extent, the loss of any significant Protestant input over the past 30 years is a key loss to Republicanism, and it shows.
I what to touch on some similar sort of themes to this in a slightly longer format, so will keep my powder dry to then. Suffice to say, Mark is almost totally wrong in his definition of what it means to be Republican.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 03:22 PMSo RepublicanStones, its not actually ‘brits out’, we can stay as long as we stop being brits. Thanks for that.
Greagoir, although I am a mere amoeba compared to your towering intellect, I do grasp the ideals of the United Irishmen. However ideals are only as good as they play out in the real world. Or do you believe that Wexford was an idealistic action?
By the way I was mostly educated in the French system and I can’t recall it being overly anglocentric.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 03:47 PMIrish republicanism - or republicanism in Ireland? This seems to me to be something that we should keep when discussing this topic.
It seems that those who define themelves as Irish republicans tend to be more focused on the specifically Irish context, and to be more likely to be guilty of the narrow thinking regarding nationalism and sometimes religion. This is of course not true of all who think that way. There is I think a mistaken assumption that republicanism has been the attitude of the majority of Irish people, when it fact it has been much more about the position of Ireland, and often Irish Catholics, within the British Empire. This is true especially of the period from O’Connell to the 1918 election. At that point, after the Easter Rising executions and the attempt at conscription, many people became separatists, but kept the insular attitudes associated with the Catholic interest politics that dominated the C19th. And unfortunately, that was the attitude that prevailed at the time of the Tan War. It is also the attitude of the majority of those who call themselves republicans in NI today.
Yet this politics owes little to the how the international republican tradition has expressed itself in Ireland. Republicanism is a secular, progressive, political philosophy, centred round the sovereignty of the people and equality among citizens. This is the tradition in which Tone, Lalor, Davitt, Connolly and Pearse stand. And despite what people like to think, it has by and large been the minority position, at least after the time of the United Irishmen. It is the revolutionary tradition in all countries, and has the potential to develop into a programme of social equality - from Jacobinism to Socialism. This is my understanding of republicanism.
But as is clear from home and abroad, republicanism also has the possibility to stagnate, to become the fig leaf for naked class interest, hatred, and bigotry. Unfortunately this is what happened in the United States, and in southern Ireland. It is also what has happened in NI since the Troubles broke out.
I’ve always been a 1798 person rather than a 1916 one myself, though the progressive aspects of the Proclamation are often overlooked. Slievenanee points to incidents of sectarianism in Wexford in 1798. That does not invalidate the republican tradition, nor the aim of uniting Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter. It is the only solution to our problems. Those who seek to represent one sectarian bloc or the other cannot be republican - they represent not the tradition of Tone, or Pearse, or Connolly, but the tradition of O’Connell and Roaring Hanna. One of the many tragedies of the Troubles has been the bastardising of republicanism.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 04:00 PMWell said Garibaldy. You do your namesake proud.
There has been a strong Jacobite tradition in my family and a strong relationship with France.
It is the (seemingly) required link between Irish and republican, with a very narrow definition of what it means to be Irish, that I have found distaseful.
It seems that in this part of the world one had to qualify as gaelic irish before being allowed to proceed with being a republican.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 04:19 PM‘...we can stay as long as we stop being brits. Thanks for that.’
Wow, missed the point by the proverbial mile. Tell me, are the brits living in the republic no longer british? Who said you had to ‘stop being brits’?
I suppose a german living in france is no longer a german by your line of thinking?Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 05:28 PM“are the brits living in the republic no longer british?”
What brits in the republic?
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 06:14 PMslug
What brits in the republic?
Check the immigration figures.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 07:32 PMSo he means British people who moved to the Repubilc?
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 07:50 PMIJP,
I think Kensei’s response about covers it. The Protestant contribution was fundamental in the sense that the republican tradition would not exist in the same form without it, whereas I don’t think there are any Catholics who have played a similarly decisive role in the history of unionism, at least in Ireland.
If you simply equate republicanism with Catholicism, you miss the deep tensions that have often existed between the republican and Catholic strands of Irish nationalism.
Obviously the impact of the Troubles is a major factor in explaining why there are so few Protestant representatives in republican parties. Violent conflict always reinforces communal divisions.
One benefit of the Good Friday Agreement from a republican point of view is that it offers the political opportunity to change that, if it is used wisely.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 08:03 PM“One benefit of the Good Friday Agreement from a republican point of view is that it offers the political opportunity to change that, if it is used wisely.”
Problem is that Sinn Féin are absolutely the wrong peole to do it.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 08:05 PMIf you’re making reference to the united Ireland strand of Republicanism then its probably in the slow lane at the moment, I don’t believe for a second that it will actually ever transpire in the 1916 sense.
If on the other hand you’re making reference to real-life Republicanism of the Irish State then its obviously gathered a lot of traction and momentum since 1922/23, it is now in its advanced stages where most if not all citizens feel included and valued.
Going forwards I think it would be great to have more active participation of northern ireland residents in Irish civic life, perhaps some seats should be reserved for them in the upper house at some point in the future.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 09:40 PMIf you hold that the people of Ireland should elect their own government then you are an Irish republican. It is not necessary to support either violence nor socialism. in fact a socialist republic is a contradiction in terms because it implies the Irish people are not free to say no thanks to socialism.
There is of course a debate about violence because the denial of the republic rests entirely on British violence. Irish people have the right to oppose the British in arms. But that does not mean it is either right or smart in a particular situation.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2008 @ 10:24 PMHenry94: There is of course a debate about violence because the denial of the republic rests entirely on British violence.
Surely you mean *hypothetical* British violence. After all, now that Articles 2 & 3 of your constitution have been revised, there is no realistic scenario where the RoI and the UK will be violently at odds over the future of the 6 counties.
Posted by on Oct 12, 2008 @ 12:16 AMSome basic political science, folks:
Republicanism is a form of government wherein sovereignty is recognized as residing in the will of the people. (Ireland is a republic.)
Monarchism is a form of government wherein sovereignty is recognized as residing in the person of the monarch. (The United Kingdom is a monarchy.)
Don’t allow all the “isms” (like sectarianism, socialism, Catholicism, Protestantism, unionism, et cetera) to let you lose sight of what it means to be a republican. Want to understand republicanism? Read a biography of George Washington.
Posted by on Oct 12, 2008 @ 06:20 AMReader
there is no realistic scenario where the RoI and the UK will be violently at odds over the future of the 6 counties.
There never was. Governments in Dublin are formed from parties which reject violence as a means of ending partition. Clearly such a prospect is unrealistic under current or foreseeable circumstances.
But there are other things that could be none to support and vindicate the rights of Irish people living in the north. Representation in Dail Eireann is the obvious one. The right to vote in presidential elections is another.
Violence spooks the majority in the south. In its absence an effective national movement can be built. And Sinn Fein are the only viable political leadership for such a movement.
Fianna Fail have shown they were bluffing about becoming a 32-county political force. The dissidents have nothing to offer but violence more or less for the sake of it. it’s Sinn Fein or nothing now for anyone who is serious about republicanism.
Posted by on Oct 12, 2008 @ 06:48 AM
