Monday, March 10, 2008
Republican way forward
A few days ago one of our regular commenters, Pancho’s Horse; asked me to analyse the current situation from a Republican perspective. At the time I though that it might be an interesting intellectual challenge but I have tried to look at this sort of thing before and have been attacked by republicans for not understanding. Anyhow here goes again. Complaints should also be directed to Pancho’s Horse.
For those who complain my blogs are too long a brief summary: In my view the there are short and medium term opportunities and potential pitfalls. The long term cannot be predicted.
Since the resumption of power sharing republicans have not had a litany of successes to crow about. Ruane has removed the 11 plus but it may come back from the dead; a sort of undead 11 plus. The other SF ministers have been relatively undistinguished, I mean that not as an insult but their departments have not had especially dramatic things to crow about possibly excepting Conor Murphy’s road building plans. They have, however, managed to avoid making an overt mess the way Ruane, Poots, Paisley junior and McGimpsey have.
Part of the problem is that day to day politics is just not as exciting as the negotiations were. The republican faithful may get bored with what they see as the administration of British rule (actually just normal government). This has been partly to blame, I suspect, for the resignation of Gerry McHugh; although as I have suggested before I always get the impression that republicans in Fermanagh are the most hard line and ideologically committed. I doubt the assorted new republican parties can make that much headway and I doubt that in the short term dissident republicans can create an organised terrorist campaign; whether or not the IRA itself will return to violence is a question I cannot answer from a republican position. Most regular readers will know what I think.
The assorted potential malcontents do, however, need to be kept happy and there have been a number of strategies: the cavalcade for Londonderry (okay I will call it Derry since it is a blog on republicanism), the episodes of symbols in Limavady and Banbridge. The recent episode over Farrell can be seen in a similar light but it was actually much cleverer than that. By now raising the issue of unionist symbols at Stormont, this opens up a whole new front in trouble making and hence, in things to demand to be changed. If acquiesced to this would reduce the general “Britishness” of Northern Ireland and even if the demands are not met other concessions might be gained instead. It was a well thought out idea and I guess if it benefits republicanism Ms. Farrell would be pleased whatever her views on Stormont. It gains media coverage for another youngish republican woman Jennifer McCann, it also keeps the appearance of momentum. Again, however, there is always the short term danger that some expect every republican wheeze to produce a victory. From a republican view point it is better to see themselves as besieging the castle of unionism. Each little attack may weaken the wall a little more and indeed weaken the defenders resolve (I actually disagree with both those points but I suspect it is a good way to analyse it as a republican). Using a similar analysis, republicans can point to the DUP dumping Paisley and the emergence of the TUV as examples of the fact that unionists are unhappy with republican gains. They can also present it as the danger of unionists rolling the process back unless vigilance (and the SF vote) is kept up.
In the short term then there are problems and opportunities. In the medium term it is the same. There is always the danger of the supporters loosing heart. What is needed is a way to ensure that republicans feel they are gaining more than unionists and yet keep alive the sense of being outsiders; still needing to push on towards the final goal. They need to be seen to work the system, use the system, benefit from the system yet not be of the system.
If McGuinness or any other Sinn Fein member became First Minister that would be a great boost yet care would need to be exercised to ensure that did not lead to the executive being collapsed by unionists. Maybe a case for magnanimity, letting a unionist be First Minister and repeatedly reminding them that you allowed them that? Maybe a rotating First ministership?
All this of course ignores the RoI. I cannot comment on it but I do think that they need to hold their current support yet dump some of the socialist baggage. That might loose less support than they think. Much SF support comes from the border regions and I doubt Monaghan, Louth and Donegal farmers are that wedded to socialism. I accept in Dublin it would be more of a problem.
In the longer term who knows. Maybe there will be an RC majority in Northern Ireland and maybe that majority will vote for a united Ireland. I think anyone who claims to be able to answer that question is deluding themselves. There are too many variables. Maybe also republicans will go back to violence. Even if current republicans were committed to non violence (something I personally do not believe); I have always maintained that the hatred and what are to an extent ethnic divisions (though I know we are all ethnically the same) will make violence resurface. If you do not believe me: look at Yugoslavia; look at how violence here has recurred frequently. In my view to say that future generations would never resort to violence is folly. Our children may well think of the romance of the rebellion and not the horror of its out workings (and yes that applies on both sides).
Overall I think the republican leadership have played their hand pretty well. They achieved a great deal from violence and even more from its ending. They may still gain concessions from disbanding the army council. Being nice to Paisley has bedded Stormont in and if it is collapsed it is unlikely that they will be seen as solely or even mainly responsible; they might well be seen as the innocent parties.
Can all this achieve their goal? Well it depends on what that is: demographics might do it for them. Of course as The Dubliner (I hope you are enjoying Israel) always observed they may want a lot more than merely a united Ireland and I very much doubt a 32 county socialist republic is possible. To get more concessions for their own side is probably possible. However, to make unionists want a united Ireland; I think is impossible for the current generation of the republican leadership. One of our family friends is about 10 years older than me and Elenwe. He is a border Protestant who maintains that but for the IRA there might well have a united Ireland. He may be correct. However, any chance of getting unionists to accept it, if by chance that was what republicans had wanted; that died when the IRA started their campaign. I genuinely think that when Adams talks about unionists being willing to accept a united Ireland may not understand that his friends killed that possibility when they started and I need not list the names by which they confirmed that idea’s death. As I said in another blog: much too long the memories of Adams, McGuinness and their and their friends’ pasts; much too long the dark nights for unionists in the likes of South Fermanagh to recall what they had done, much too recent the pain and much too significant for unionists throughout Northern Ireland.
Well Pancho’s Horse I tried my best. There you go.
Turgon @ 09:55 PM
Pretty much what I expected and it makes for grim reading.But will require a (or several) re-reads. Thanks for the effort. You can now lie down with a damp cloth on your brow.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 10:29 PMClearly SF are the main factor at present and Republicans rebuilding outside that party have a long and difficult, potentially hopeless task ahead of them, but that’s a discussion for elsewhere so I’ll give my view on your views of SF.
I think the main thing you miss is the ‘broad-church’ nature of SF and how the denominations within that church have shifted. SF have definitely moved onto the ground of constitutionality, the final step being acceptance of the legitimacy of British law and policing in Ireland. That move was gradual and while it was being made I don’t feel they ‘Republicanised’ their new supporters but moved to ground more appealing for them. While the broad church is managing to hold at present with those who see themselves as socialists, pure-green Republicans and the stoop-at-heart wanting the strongest front against Unionism - can it hold together in the long term?
Will the Socialist Republicans stay on board as PPP, strikebreaking, welcoming non-Unionised employers, selling off public assets and dodgey US investment continues?
Will the dark green vote stay as the cosying up to the DUP continues, no real gains are made on blurring the border and the cops make no impact on crime?
Will the stoop-at-heart have any reason to stay loyal as they didn’t ever buy the core messages if FF or the SDLP give an alternate credible home?
For me things are stable at present for SF but trying to hold together such a disparate group of voters will become increasingly difficult and it inevitably leads to further dilution of any core values.
Though, to me those slowly working across a number of areas putting down the roots to provide for a regrowth of Socialist Republicanism are my hopes for the future. But I’m a dreamer.....
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 10:33 PMMark regardless of voters do you think Sinn Féin will lose a lot of activists?
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 10:36 PMNo, I can’t see a major loss like that in Dublin. I could see them suffering from attrition as Stormont beds in and the actual real difference an activist can contribute to becomes limited beyond election time but I reckon the DUP will experience the same and if the UUP and SDLP had any they’d be losing them too. That’s just an inevitable consequence of Stormont.
but I’m no expert and it’s just gut feeling.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 10:46 PMTurgon,
“He is a border Protestant who maintains that but for the IRA there might well have a united Ireland. He may be correct.”
This statement may be true or it maybe designed to suggest what is most unpalatable to Republican ears - they were trying too hard - all they had to do was to sit on their hands and hey presto it would be a United Ireland.
This is extremely unlikely as the anti-ROI, anti-Catholic prejudice is an integral part of the Unioinst identity. The idea that anything would be given to the enemy without a fight is a nonsense. Extreme Unioinist’s rhetoric has softened AFTER 30 years of violence and only after their veto was removed from the equation by the British - the only reason the British did that as Bob Mc Cartney rightly points out is because of the big bombs in London.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 10:56 PMEvery political party in the real world represents a varried contigent with in its ranks and swings from side to side as real world conditions change. Most people who join a party are fairly pragmatic about what it represesents and bide their time until political sensibilities turn in their favour.
Few if any people feel one party represents their entire political views and pick the one party that represents the biggest part of what they expect
Having said that I think SF could swing more to the right away from socialism as long as the economic picture of its constituents improve. Money in pocket speaks louder to most then political ideals.
I dare say that the centre left socialism of the UK such as socialised medicine would carry well into the republic but pure socialism is a pipe dream.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 10:59 PMAny loss of activists no longer matters. All they need is an election machine. People will turn out for the elections, but the PSF game is now almost completely council and Stormont centred. The shift towards that has been obvious for years, most obviously in the northern universities, where there has been a deliberate shift to basically one big event (Hunger Striker centred usually) and quiet normal activism as opposed to screaming and shouting, protests etc.
There will be enough of a protest culture kept going to appear active, and added to commemorations, but the old style of politics has gone completely.
Much of the same could be said of the DUP.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 10:59 PMTurgon, is it not a bit disingenuous of you to suggest that if the Provisional Alliance had not launched their ‘campaign of terror’ that the colonial types would have been bursting themselves to throw up their privileged position and rush madly into a United Ireland or at least a settlement with the natives? If the white S Africans/Rhodesians could have avoided democracy, they would have.You can’t seem to grasp (or maybe you can) the fact that once the planters start to mix with the planted and grant them equality in their own country, then the show is over and a return to the mainland (sic) is the only option.THis imagined racial/religious/linguistic superiority is the colonial raison d’etre and if it is removed then all is lost.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:02 PMGari,
Agree completely. For those sitting in the leather seats with more as priority activism will hold little appeal beyond set pieces.
Though, good old fashioned left wing protest, broad front too, got a result this week. A small victory but one that relied on the combined action of Unions, SP, éirígí, anarchists, IRSP and others.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:16 PMas I`ve said before..
SF`s core support especially in the rural areas is socially conservative and any reference to “socialism” is merely window dressing…
SF will continue to dwell, grow or stagnate in the large urban centres, Dublin, Cork, etc...as the FF and FG ARE the social conservative parties and as past Southern elections have shown, SF will struggle to eat into this vote and its a vote they need if they are to become a relevant political force....From those SF activists and supporters I`ve spoken too, there is a sense of dissatisfaction (hence the growing number of commerations and marches, to re-enforce SF`s Republican credentials!)and a growing realisation that their voice and concerns are routinely ignored. Hence a growing momentum of doubt..
Do SF have a coherent direction or is at the whim of the current leadership cloaked behind the facade of democratic centralism!!
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:18 PMFrom the sounds of the comments, Turgon, you made a pretty good try for an outside analyst. Congrats.
Maybe they’ll offer you a job!Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:18 PM“Any loss of activists no longer matters. All they need is an election machine.”
Was the loss of activists in Dublin related to their vote drop there?
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:18 PM‘that died when the IRA started their campaign.’
I doubt if unionists would ever agree to a united Ireland, and the fact that their acceptance is not a necessity for it, means their approval rests on the ‘in a perfect world shelf’. Unfortunately Turgon, your post seems to try and lump the blame for the start of the violence with republicans, and as history is well aware, this was not the case.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:25 PMSlug,
I seriously doubt it. That was more to do with the TV performance of Adams and the aggresive work done by FF’s own electoral machine. In the battle of the populists in the south, there is only going to be one winner. Whereas I suspect any contest in the north would go the opposite way.
Mark,
Great to see progress, and I wasn;t suggesting that activism should be abandoned by the left. Just that it has been abandoned by PSF and DUP as they no longer need it. It would be a hindrance rather than a help. So spats at Stormont over symbolic and irrelevant nonsense while working hand-in-glove.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:26 PMSammy
This is extremely unlikely as the anti-ROI, anti-Catholic prejudice is an integral part of the Unionist identity.
I think this is unfair. While there is undoubtedly a lot of that floating around Unionism,(and even more so in the past), while reading McKay’s “Northern Protestants” (not popular among Unionist here, I know), I was struck by how there was the odd flash of curiosity in Gaelic culture and a United Ireland. And a cursory glance at Irish history will reveal a large number of Protestants (even the odd Ulster Protestant post 1798) that have been involved with Nationalism.
I’m not saying that is typical: it clearly isn’t. But it is likely possible to create a political party to encourage that. Enough for as United Ireland? Probably not. But we are getting to the point where small swings could top it, and we’d be in a better position where Protestant identification as Irish is apparently in negative figures.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:28 PMTurgon
Firstly, fair play to you for attempting to extricate yourself from the unionist prism you normally look through.
As I’ve said before here, it is truly fascinating learning how others see us (I don’t just mean that in a unionist/ nationalist context, but in a broader sense.) It provides an insight into one’s thinking, but also exposes preconceptions, prejudices and blindspots that we can’t see simply because they have been an integral part of the narrative we have experienced/ bought into/ prefer from our tenderest age.
A couple of weeks ago, I took a series of lessons with my Primary 5 class, introducing the concept of prejudices and stereotyping initially through differences they observed between ‘boys’ and ‘girls’, before moving onto ‘catholics’ and ‘protestants’ and, finally, introducing the class to Islam.
It was a very enjoyable series of lessons, and if you have experience of working with young children, then you’ll know that the candour and carefree attitude they bring to such discussions is refreshing and revealing.
All of which brings me to your observations.
First, let me address an apparent contradiction in your thinking. You concede that republicans had “been nice” to Paisley in order to bed in Stormont.
You do this without stopping to think about either why that was done, nor how difficult it must’ve been for republicans at both a leadership and grassroots level.
You’re not alone in recognising the existence of a Sinn Fein strategy to hold tongues and allow Paisley- and various loudmouth DUPers- to fire off the odd provocative and offensive salvo without retaliation- all in order to give Paisley room to bring his party into the power-sharing arrangements.
Of course nationalists were incensed by the demeaning usage of the ‘Deputy’ term by Paisley and his (false) assertions in a number of interviews that he called the shots and was in charge.
And how do you think the long line of unionist MLAs queueing to have a go at the Irish language- not to mention catholic education (that’d be Sammy and Michelle) -went down with many republicans?
The reason for holding fire was clearly to give the DUP time to stabilise the party within the administration- hardly conducive to a strategy of seeking to divide unionism.
Secondly, the unionist interpretation of republican initiatives always seems to contextualise such happenings within a darker strategy to ‘con the Prods’ when, in truth, often such occurences are the product of no such ‘strategising.’
Take the Derry cavalcade. As far as I can see, that was a fairly spontaneous initiative by an energetic MLA- certainly not the product of long-term scheming to ‘keep the troops silent.’
Similarly, Martin McGuinness’ honest assessment of his feelings in the immediate aftermath of Bloody Sunday- sentiments which would’ve been naturally shared by many within his community at the time.
(contd below)Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:33 PMAnd, perhaps most ironically, the decision to hold a Mairead Farrell commemoration at Stormont was undoubtedly taken to emphasise to the nationalist/ republican community that the shared institutions of government bought into through the GFA/ SAA ushered in a new era in which there would be equality for both traditions- though the Parliament remains sited at the location of unionist domination for 50 years, complete with statues and emblems clearly identifiable with only one community, a concession which always seems to evade unionists.
Dismissing the desire to have the nationalist identity afforded equal legitimacy with that of unionism as ‘trouble-making’ kinda sums up where unionism has gone wrong with this entire issue.
I believe there is a job of work in this for the leadership of unionism. Rather than accusing republicans of ‘stoking up trouble’ by daring to seek an accomodation over the display of political and cultural items identified with only one community, unionist leaders should be educating their community about the need to respect expressions of the nationalist identity- with all that entails regarding not just flags and emblems from civic buildings, but also the Irish language, bashing which (sadly) seems to have replaced coat-trailing parades as the best measure of ‘Superprod’ status amongst the angry pin-stripers.
Consider this: why is it that nationalist-controlled local government councils, which as a rule practice proportionality in the allocation of civic posts (a practice not reciprocated on most unionist-controlled councils, by the way) have not raised the Irish national flag, preferring to adopt policies emphasising the need for neutral working environments? Could it be because they are demonstrating the type of equal respect for the unionist tradition that nationalists are demanding from unionists at Stormont and on various other local government councils?
From a nationalist- never mind republican- perspective, the exclusively British and unionist trappings of the northern state since partition served as a reminder of the alien status of the nationalist community in the northern state, divorced from the ‘Free State’ and the rest of our country as a result of partition.
Therefore, given that a political accommodation has been secured between the two traditions in the six counties, it is only logical- and indeed perfectly justifiable- for nationalists to demand equal expression of their political and cultural identity to that of unionism, whether that take the form of displays at civic buildings at local government level or at Parliament Buildings, where a statue remains to a notorious gun-runner/ unionist statesman (delete appropriately...)
Lastly, the republican way forward, as intimated by others like Mark on this thread, will undoubtedly be marked by the friction between a desire to work the institutions and to maintain a radical edge, particularly given that our political system provides for permanent government for the main parties. I have my own thoughts on that, which Mick has asked me to put together for a forthcoming thread ( so I’ll not bore you all now.....)
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:35 PMMaybe, if all the southern political parties decided to organise in the North, this could address the fears and concerns of Unionists…
Surely on social issues the major Unionist parties would fit quite nicely into FG or maybe go along with them and form a new grouping?
Fanciful maybe but anythings now possible.
As to a United Ireland, it will never occur unless theres an accommodation of some sort with Unionists....
What we need are politics which cross the divide and unite the working class in Dublin and Belfast…
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:36 PMkensei
Thanks for making that post. I am neither anti-Catholic nor anti-Irish and in fact I do identify with much Irish culture and take a pride in it. I was going to reply but then I revoned this is not a thread about unionism :). As for whether this will grow I think it would. But then again there is a lot of pride in being British for me too, and in being distinctly Northern Irish as well.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:37 PMkensei,
Well argued and I suspect quite close to the truth. I doubt it is possible to get any significant number of Protestants to be truly nationalists; those who might be seen as part way there like John Dunlop are largely regarded with contempt by most unionists.What might be possible with a lot of time and effort might be to make an adequate number of unionists acquiesce to it. That might be a reasonable ultra long term ambition for nationalists / republicans. However, I suspect it would involve doing a lot less of the Farrell, Limavady etc stuff which is probably more useful in the short, medium and even relatively long term.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:39 PMChris
The reason for holding fire was clearly to give the DUP time to stabilise the party within the administration- hardly conducive to a strategy of seeking to divide unionism.
I think time is running out on that strategy as people are beginning to get annoyed. The presumption on the news tonight any stadium will be based in (East) Belfast because the DUP wants it there irritated. Though the suggestion that they could somehow make a viable stadium without the GAA amused, considering the amount the Maze figures have to rely on it.
Turgon
Well argued and I suspect quite close to the truth. I doubt it is possible to get any significant number of Protestants to be truly nationalists; those who might be seen as part way there like John Dunlop are largely regarded with contempt by most unionists.
Actually, I disagree. I think we need to get to the point where people aren’t treated with disdain for supporting it. Or Catholics on the Falls supporting Unionism, for that matter.
You might think me mad, but when Howard Dean took over the Democratic Party, he announced he was going to run with a 50 state strategy. They were going to organise in “red states” and build, slowly from the bottom up. What Republicanism need in the North is a six county strategy (realistically, they are attempting that to an extent in the other 26, before anyone starts).
Rather than engage in “Unionist outreach”, SF need to open an office on the Shankill. And the Village. And the loyalist areas of Derry and the rest. Then they need to soak up the outrage, the inevitable threats and attacks and work as hard as they can manage for at least ten years. The first step in a long road to any Unionist considering a United Ireland is a Unionist considering voting for a Nationalist candidate because they were there and did something useful while the Unionist wasn’t. That to my mind, is the only way anyone is going to make headway with Unionism; suggesting otherwise is suggesting that it’ll come about by doing nothing.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:59 PMGood post Turgon - much too long as usual but got your message pretty quickly. Personal view that is hardening every day is that people like yourself will be “persuaders” for a United Ireland very quickly. But let’s see what happens eh!
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 12:01 AMAnd Kensei - couldn’t agree with you more.
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 12:14 AMI don’t think we want people in a United Ireland who have been forced, outbred or sullenly acquiesce.We’ll wait for the enthusiasm.
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 12:18 AMKensei,
The WP used to run mobile advice centres in unionist areas in the 1980s and early 1990s. But I think the tolerance for that type of thing would be gone, and certainly not for the Provos.
A nice idea though. More importantly, I’m not sure the Provos actually want to put that effort in.Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 12:25 AM
