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 @ 08:55 PM
Pancho
I don’t think we want people in a United Ireland who have been forced, outbred or sullenly acquiesce.We’ll wait for the enthusiasm.
No, we bloody well won’t, or I want joint sovereignty now. I don’t want to be in the UK, I acquiesce to it because of a lack of a majority., No, no more changing of the rules.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:25 PMkensei,
Your first post impressed, the second more so. Such a plan would not be radical, it would be visionary.
I am profoundly impressed.
There are, however, problems:I think you underestimate the relevance of what is in a way ethnic culture and an ethnic conflict
Currently and for the forseeable future it would be coat trailing. Memories of the Shankill bomb are much too recent.
Sinn Fein do not have anyone who could carry this off, and I cannot see the circumstances in which they could get such a person.
I think you tend as many republicans do to romanticise the Protestant working class and see them as people you can reach out to. You forget that they are not usually that keen on reaching out to you or your reaching out to them. They have long memories. You also forget that you are not discussing the Protestant working class but a small very disadvantaged minority of them. Disadvantaged to a large extent by the malign influence of loyalist paramilitaries and the failure of unionist parties to help them. You perceive in their disadvantage an opportunity for outreach. I suspect there is none.
The rest of the Protestant working class will also be disinterested and they are the majority.
You make no allowance for the unionist middle classes. Not necessarily folk like me who are essentially irredeemable but also the lower middle classes and the urban ones. They will not flock to you whatever you do.
Finally you have folk like me. People like me do exist outside the music halls of slugger and as can be seen recently we do have a certain voting weight.
Still radical thinking and to be roundly commended.
In 50 years time your plan might be possible and might work but that is the kind of minimum time scale we are discussing.
Dewi, Never forget that beneath the polite veneer and references to literature I have a heart made of unionist adamant. Every now and then people see it and it has not changed in blogging here. It was forged at QUB Student’s Union in the early 1990s largely by republicans.
Pancho’s Horse,
Well said but I fear you will end up waiting for my grandchildren at the earliest. Still when I am gone it matters not to me how my children run the country. I would never bind them to an oath to oppose nationalist forever; poetic as such a thing might be.Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:25 PMNo offence Turgon, as with OSF, anyone that learned their politics at Queen’s should have got an edumacation instead.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:33 PMYup, Turgon, I agree with all you say and most people on this thread, I suspect, do too. This horde of prods awaiting salvation is pie in the sky. But you won’t bind your children - never mind your grandchildren.
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:36 PM“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.”
Turgon
Speaking personally as a southerner I personally already see theses links you seem to think dont exist beginning. Especially now with the decline in religious practice in the south. I personally have a close relative who is hapilly married an ex-RUC officer, I have family members working alongside border protestants in Dublin. I know of two catholic men from the south married to protestant women in the North.
Funny story about one of them . He was visiting her family and his car being a southern reg got scrached by some local boys… the mother offered to get them seen to by the local loyalists but he declined the offer.
I have friends from the south of mixed religious background some with links to the OO. They all quite hapily vote for and some of them are even members of Fianna Fáil(A republican Party). I also have many friends up here in belfast that have moved up from the south who are very likely to stay up here permenantly. Give it 20 years when the political landscape has changed again we may well see a United Ireland of Green and Orange. The sooner Sinn Féin go the sooner that is likely to happen. The future is unpredictable but I do see the possibility of a UUP reemergance and Fianna Fáil emerging as realpolitik takes hold up here.
These are just some of my personal observations. Id be interested to get a response ...
By the way well done Turgon I think youre starting to show some understanding of the other side. Well written piece even if I dont think youve got your finger on the button exactly
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:45 PMMr. McGregor,
Fair point but as I suspect fair_deal would confirm since I believe he knows who I am; I went to QUB rather liberal, certainly the child of liberal parents. Had I not failed the family and gone to Cambridge as my parents wanted, I would have ended up very liberal. But then the music hall villain that I am here on slugger would never have existed. Think Mr. Donnelly can warn his P5 children about monstrous unionists that he has to do internet battle with. How much less colourful would my life have been without QUBSU. I guess I owe a dent of gratitude to those republicans who shouted me down and humiliated me when I first tried to make a speech there.Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:51 PMTurgon
Did you get an offer from Cambridge?
Posted by on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:57 PMTurgon,
Experience of sectarianism and nasty politics made you the man you are today.
What I fail to understand then is how you shifted from the UUP to the DUP, especially after Daphne Trimble was kicked outside meetings. Never mind some of the more, eh, colourful activities of the DUP both before that and the time. Such as appearing at anti-agreement rallies with people who would shortly be convicted of sectarian bombings.
I can understand your scepticism towards the Provos. But I think you (and many unionists like you) miss the misbehaviour of many unionists. As you move from party to party according to their position on sharing power with the Provos, perhaps you may reflect on that. Already it has been alledged on here that a member of TUV was seen in interesting company on the TV.
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 12:00 AMQuiz master,
Maybe and if such happened I of all people would not start a war over it.Do not underestimate, however, the capacity of Prods (and others) to lie. I know of several very liberal, middle class Protestant girls who are so liberal in public and in mixed company. In private it is very different.
Also never forget the outside Belfast factor. Middle class belfast prods have a veneer of liberalism, some many even be liberal. Go to Fermanagh, South Londonderry etc. and it is very different.
As I say who knows. I am and I am sure will remain a unionist. What others do is for them. What I would never do is fight against a united Ireland. I might be grumpy and a bit difficult, I might leave (but am essentially too thran) but I would not support, counsel, let alone use violence to stop it.
I am sorry about the Dunlop thing but he is to me an archetype of what lots of nationalists want to believe middle class unionists are. In reality he represents very little of the Presbyterian Church and no one else despite his ability to be a rent a quote for the media and get onto some panel to decide that calling the people, who blew up Omagh terrorists was one sided.
slug,
Yes got offer did not get A level grades. It was the making of me. I realised I was not that clever, worked really hard and got a half reasonable degree. Had I got in I would have believed I was clever, coasted and failed.Garibaldy,
I was never in DUP and am not now. I was in UUP, then nothing and have now joined Jim’s happy band.Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 12:04 AMA very good piece Turgon, and one which I think most Unionists could concur with.
Reading the subsequent comments, nationalists / republicans still remain mired in the notion that Unionists will someone willingly jump on board the UI bus, if only we can somehow be persauded.
Turning the argument on it’s head, what would it take to persaude ROI citizens to join the UK? How many takers would there be?
Precisely. Unionists wish to remain in the UK. That’s why they’re called Unionists. The only way a UI is going to ever happen is when a majority in NI vote for it. At the moment, that looks like being decades away.
So why can’t SF just accept the fact? Are we going to have to endure year after year of tedious wrangling over emblems, flags, language, commemerations etc etc, making absolutely no difference to the overall outcome, or is there any possible chance we could focus on issues such as health, education and housing that actually affect people’s everyday lives?
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 12:06 AMMy mistake Turgon. Thought you had given your support to the DUP. But if TUV people are going to keep company with loyalists in protests, does that raise questions in your mind?
Totally agree with you on the reality of middle class sectarianism. On both sides. Insidious, highly irresponsible and very dangerous.
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 12:07 AMCurrently and for the forseeable future it would be coat trailing. Memories of the Shankill bomb are much too recent.
I have no doubt it would be incredibly tough. I think ti would probably entail some physical risk in some circumstances. I could easily see any offices being burnt repeatedly. As for the Shankill Bomb, I think that SF should publicly apologise for it; even if it had have hit its intended target, it was 100% guaranteed to kill passers by. Even by SF logic it was wrong. The message is simple: rather than placing efforts into destroying the area, effort will be put into building it up.
Sinn Fein do not have anyone who could carry this off, and I cannot see the circumstances in which they could get such a person.
The party would need to change. Because if you want an office on the Shankill, you have to ask what type of office could succeed there. I’m an Irish Republican and don’t apologise for it, and don’t believe the party should hide its politics. But the paramilitary trappings would have to go. And if you have them on the Falls and not on the Shankill then it’s hypocrisy. But anyone in the party could do it. It simply requires both moral and physical courage.
I think you tend as many republicans do to romanticise the Protestant working class and see them as people you can reach out to. You forget that they are not usually that keen on reaching out to you or your reaching out to them. They have long memories. You also forget that you are not discussing the Protestant working class but a small very disadvantaged minority of them.
I’m not. Maybe my post wasn’t clear: I’m suggesting a 50 state strategy. That means everywhere. I think that Left politics might play better in more disadvantaged areas, but both deeply felt Unionism and potential attack from loyalist paramilitary would probably make those places harder to win.
Disadvantaged to a large extent by the malign influence of loyalist paramilitaries and the failure of unionist parties to help them. You perceive in their disadvantage an opportunity for outreach. I suspect there is none.
I think that both those groups have done a bad job for those communities. Anywhere that happens there is opportunity. I don’t expect big gains: but if a Republican Party could reach 10% of people in 25 years that would be a revolution.
The rest of the Protestant working class will also be disinterested and they are the majority.
I’m not interested in selling Nationalism. If the island was United tomorrow, would that mean we’d reached the True Republic. Obviously as a Republican I believe that to be a superior situation. But with so much disadvantage and division around, I don’t think anyone could claim that it was the ideal Republic.
So no, my aim would be to build the true Republic where I can: I believe it as important for those on the Shankill as those on the Falls. Acquiescence and more favourable attitudes to Uniting the country would hopefully fall out of that.
You make no allowance for the unionist middle classes. Not necessarily folk like me who are essentially irredeemable but also the lower middle classes and the urban ones. They will not flock to you whatever you do.
If you follow any of my posts on SF here, I’ve continually argued for SF to transform from a “Socialist” party to a true compassionate “Social Democratic” one modelled on Nordic lines though perhaps a little to the right of that. I think there is space for that among middle class Unionists. Indeed there is a gap on that side.
Again it would require hard work, and smart policy.
Finally you have folk like me. People like me do exist outside the music halls of slugger and as can be seen recently we do have a certain voting weight.
I have little hope for you, Turgon, but I’m not aiming to hit everyone. I am aiming to end stigma and gain some small acceptance and some small increase in vote. Though I would be targeting you and your friends on abortion and the truth we could keep it off the island for at least another generation if there was a United Ireland.
There is of course, nothing stopping Unionism from pursuing a 50 state strategy. Neither side has the balls or the vision to attempt it. My key test for any support I’ll give to FF is whatb they do in this area. I’m not hopeful for anyhing other than token moves.
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 12:17 AM“I have a heart made of unionist adamant.”
Nice phrase - but means nothing unless has some purpose - and that’s what you lot ain’t got.Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 12:30 AMTurgon,
A well written piece and insightful. I think this whole idea of Sinn Fein reaching out to Unionism is patronising. More importantly, it’s pointless.
Even if in their heart of hearts most people of Unionist background were curious about a unified Irish state and how it might make their lives better, they still would never VOTE for it in a referendum. Unionists are proud and won’t ever willingly vote for a unified Ireland because of their ancestors political beliefs.
That being said, if there was a nationalist majority and a unified Irish state came about, I firmly believe after the initial bedding in, most normal people in Ulster of Unionist background will be glad it’s all over.
Because they’ll realise then that things won’t change much at all. Ulster will still be Ulster. The land and the accents won’t change. Britain and Ireland will stlll be closely linked because of history and culture and people will be relieved that all the citizens of Ireland can have a normal country that isn’t scarred by partition which perpetuates ancient differences that have no place in 21st century multicultural Ireland.
A new anthem, a new flag; and an Ireland at ease in the European state along with Britain and the rest. A normal Ireland at peace with herself and all her people of whatever colour or creed. This is the future we could all be content in.
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 01:39 AMOnly a relatively small percentage of Prods would need to vote for a UI for there to be a majority. Sinn Fein’s problem is that it is actively putting those Prods off doing so, and I think there’s an element of truth in Turgon’s (apocryphal?!) border story.
It’s why things are going to be more interesting if Fianna Fail ever organises here in a serious way. They’ve already paid for a few roads that provide tangible benefits, they’ve paid respect (and funding) to Orange culture and so on. All without the stunts of SF.
Maybe - a few decades hence, when the Prodiban are but an embarrassing memory (present company excepted) - unionists will eventually be bombed into a united Ireland by republicans… but they will be love-bombed and the party will be FF!
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 03:52 AMThough, 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.
Mark,
You’re way overstating the mark on the involvement by the assorted motley crew of unelected chuckie elements; and in any case, you have to ask yourself, are the interests of workers really served when they have people like the IRSP, whose friends put young children down manholes as part of their own “community policing”, out supporting them ?
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 07:35 AMThey have, however, managed to avoid making an overt mess the way Ruane, Poots, Paisley junior and McGimpsey have.
How has McGimpsey made an overt mess?
though I know we are all ethnically the same
How do you define ethnic? It doesn’t mean physically different, you know. I think, clearly, there are ethnic (which essentially means cultural) differences in NI between “the two communities”.
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 08:58 AMwillowfield,
I agree re ethnic but people do define it sometimes as in physical racial characteristics which do not exist here. Culturally of course they do.In terms of McGimpsey: well lets see. No real decisions on health at all. I agree one board a good idea but he took his time and implementation very limited.
No decision of substance on any hospitals. No attempt to address the problem of the South West hospital in a sustainable fashion. The Omagh community hospital is non viable and unsafe yet he persists with it. The new Downe the same.
No decision re Lagan Valley and the Trust ends up having to close Maternity. No decision re Mid Ulster.
Complete failure to meet waiting list targets; instead new targets produced and not even proper targets they are aspirational.
I could go on and on. In fact you have given me an idea for another blog.
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 09:20 AMI am trying to envisage this Sinn Féin office on the Shankill with a big banner out front proclaiming:
SINN FÉIN - PROTESTANTS ARE US !
Might work.
The Catholic Truth Society so encouraged might also open an office with a catchy slogan:
LUTHER IS THE NEW COOL - OFFICIAL !
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 09:37 AMTurgon
I agree re ethnic but people do define it sometimes as in physical racial characteristics which do not exist here.
If people do that, they are wrong - so don’t pander to be people who are wrong by pretending that you agree with them, when you don’t.
Re. McGimpsey, I don’t think anyone considers him to have made an “overt mess” - at best, you could say he has been slow to make decisions, but he’s hardly in the same league as Ruane.
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 10:27 AM“within a darker strategy to ‘con the Prods’ when, in truth, often such occurences are the product of no such ‘strategising.’”
Chris, ‘divide and rule’, and its variations, is an ancient strategy well known I’m sure to students of local history.
You can see it in the working out of the Athboy and ‘Stepping Stones’ strategies as well as in the earlier Civil Rights smokescreen. Just look at the number of liberals from the pan-Unionist families who at one time or another have been conned. I think there have been too many examples for it to have been a matter of coincidence.
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 11:26 AMTurgon
A thoughtful and well expressed analysis. You’ve certainly proved me wrong in my earlier analysis of you as negative and consistently bent on seeing only the worst in the opposition. My excuse is that I am new to Slugger.
I do have some comment on parts of what you said and I trust you will be sensible enough to at least consider them.
- ‘republicans can point to the DUP dumping Paisley ‘. I don’t think the DUP dumped Paisley any more than the FP church dumped him. The DUP trotted after him when he grasped the unthinkable nettle of power sharing and the FP church IS Paisley. He was the totem that attracted a huge membership to something that was just another fundamentalist church. He was their creator, guiding light and agenda setter. I see what happened as simply an old man retiring having achieved most of the objectives he had set himself - SF a part of British administration; IRA disarmed; SF recognition of police force etc.You refer to ‘a border Protestant who maintains that but for the IRA there might well have a united Ireland....... that died when the IRA started their campaign. Adams ...... killed that possibility when they started’
Unionists disposition towards a united Ireland should not be predicated entirely on the behaviour of SF (and the past behaviour of the IRA). As you seem to recognise SF would be no more attractive a party in a united Ireland than they are currently in the republic. They attract such a large vote in the North because they are seen as a means to an end viz a united Ireland. Nothing in their political agenda is of any attraction to the citizens of the south. They get the small vote that they do there only from people who would also like unity, let’s face it they are the one party on the island who are making any attempt whatsoever to achieve it.
So, Unionists should assess solely any potential synergies and shared benefits from political union with the south. Both SF and whatever might be left of the IRA would wither away once that union had occurred.Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 11:38 AMTurgon,
Just because you have the visceral dislike of Michael McGimpsey shared by many rural unionists does not mean he has made a botch of his department. He has not.
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 01:30 PMSorry. I see this has already been discussed. I had not yet looked at the comments.
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 01:31 PMTurgon: “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.”
Are you admitting that part of the reason why there are not more unionist ‘nationalists’ (yes, an oxymoron, but just to make the point)might not be becuause of their lack of desire to be nationalist, but their fear of comtempt (and perhaps worse) from within their own community? And, if this is so, how quickly could this disappear in a truly peaceful north not restricted to slavishly conforming to their own sect’s beliefs through fear, or being branded a ‘traitor’ or worse?
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 01:45 PM
