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
“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.”
I simply don’t see this happening. SF without its socialism is like a bird without its feathers, it won’t fly.
Equally, and disappointingly for SF, in order to justify participation in the current political compromise they have to retreat from their socialism as well as their nationalism. The future for the party, however, depends more on its nationalism ( because of the ludicrous and divisive voting systems )than its socialism, so it is inevitable that it will prioritise nationalism.
In case you might think that I am arguing for some version of SF lite ( al la SDLP ), I am not, because the communities that SF depend upon will not countenance such a flaccid politics.
SF’s dilemma, and the reason I feel that it will ultimately fail is that that internal contradiction is too deep and unapproachable to maintain a coherant Party, even given the party’s apparent acceptance to date of contradictory or even myth-laden stances.
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 02:43 PMMayoman: 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?
Um, right. Let’s decommission the terms ‘traitor’, ‘Lundy’, ‘West Brit’ and ‘Castle Catholic’. And I suppose, ‘Stoop’, while we are at it.
You may be right that that sort of tribal thinking will fade over the next few years, if only the tribal champions (SF and DUP) would give-over thinking and talking in those terms. The problem is, they only care about party fortunes. The benefits to the middle ground from a more open form of politics are a real disincentive to that lot.
And the *net* effect on the numbers game may be approximately zilch, if that’s what was on your mind.
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 02:49 PMAlan
I simply don’t see this happening. SF without its socialism is like a bird without its feathers, it won’t fly.
I disagree. I think SF need to be decisively a party of the Left, but a modern centre left one, especially if they want to get rid of transfer repellence in the South. I think that transformation can be completed and what they lose in old-style Communists will be gained at the other end.
Equally, and disappointingly for SF, in order to justify participation in the current political compromise they have to retreat from their socialism as well as their nationalism.
They don’t. Even those who believe in a mixed economy have to concede that 75+% of the economy in the public sector is not a mixed economy and cuts in the size need made.
The future for the party, however, depends more on its nationalism ( because of the ludicrous and divisive voting systems )than its socialism, so it is inevitable that it will prioritise nationalism.
I disagree. FF will be able to play the Nationalist card as effectively. they can’t credibly claim to be a party of social justice, and that is as important to SF’s future as Nationalism.
In case you might think that I am arguing for some version of SF lite ( al la SDLP ), I am not, because the communities that SF depend upon will not countenance such a flaccid politics.
I’m not arguing for that either. I am simple arguing they put their machine and their efforts to building a Republic that matches the rhetoric.
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 03:02 PM‘I don’t think we want people in a United Ireland who have been forced, outbred or sullenly acquiesce.’
I’m surprised you have to even think about this ? The IRA’s campaign to force ‘unity’ down unionist throats has probably perusaded more people in the Irish Republic that a UI is not worth the cost in lives lost and property damaged. The effect on Unionists of this campaign has been explained truthfully by Turgon.
An agreed repartition of NI would in my mind be prefereable to a UI brought about by a 50% +1 vote.
‘We’ll wait for the enthusiasm’
You can also try ‘Waiting for Godot’ and be just as successful .
Never underestimate the latent power of political inertia and the tendency of the status quo to reassert itself once the ‘storms’ have passed over !
We may be moving into such a period . But it’s early days yet in the post Paisely era !
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 03:28 PMReader: what you say may be true, but as so often happens in unionist/nationalist disucssions, you are assuming equal forces at play in both communities. That maybe isn’t the case as many people from what would be characterised as a ‘nationalist’-centric pool freely express their wish to be remain united with Britain. Maybe Turgon can answer me if every ‘unionist’ that dares to make nationalist-centric utterances faces contempt? And if so, why? Surely that person should be free to hold his own opinion without fear of such extreme reactions as contempt? for example, is Harvey Bicker now held in contempt? Its a very harsh word and just, may just, suggest some very rigid social controls on thinking, thats all I’m saying. (And lets not confuse this argument with the TRUE nil equation of the constraints on people within communities at either extreme of the divide).
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 04:04 PMI simply don’t see this happening. SF without its socialism is like a bird without its feathers, it won’t fly.
I disagree. I think SF need to be decisively a party of the Left, but a modern centre left one, especially if they want to get rid of transfer repellence in the South. I think that transformation can be completed and what they lose in old-style Communists will be gained at the other end.
And the difference here is that SF will therefore lose the constituency that sustained it for so long, a point I made further down. Without appealing to the old nationalist ghettos how will SF fare in the North?
Equally, and disappointingly for SF, in order to justify participation in the current political compromise they have to retreat from their socialism as well as their nationalism.
They don’t. Even those who believe in a mixed economy have to concede that 75+% of the economy in the public sector is not a mixed economy and cuts in the size need made.
You either want them to retreat or not, I had assumed from your desire for Social Democracy that you did.
The future for the party, however, depends more on its nationalism ( because of the ludicrous and divisive voting systems )than its socialism, so it is inevitable that it will prioritise nationalism.
I disagree. FF will be able to play the Nationalist card as effectively. they can’t credibly claim to be a party of social justice, and that is as important to SF’s future as Nationalism.
My point is that SF is locked into a sectarian voting system at the Assembly that rewards nationalist intransigence ( on both sides ). SF will inevitably have to prioritise nationalism in those circumstances. My view is that claims for social justice will ring increasingly hollow when the Executive is seen to skate smilingly over the needs of the people that SF currently court.
In case you might think that I am arguing for some version of SF lite ( al la SDLP ), I am not, because the communities that SF depend upon will not countenance such a flaccid politics.
I’m not arguing for that either. I am simple arguing they put their machine and their efforts to building a Republic that matches the rhetoric.
I think you very clearly are arguing for SF-lite, it is just that you want to replace their rhetoric with your own - a very laudable but, I believe, self defeating exercise.
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 04:30 PMAnd the difference here is that SF will therefore lose the constituency that sustained it for so long, a point I made further down. Without appealing to the old nationalist ghettos how will SF fare in the North?
I don’t believe the Nationalist working and middle class is wedded to Socialism.
You either want them to retreat or not, I had assumed from your desire for Social Democracy that you did.
No, I don’t want them to retreat on anything. I want them to adopt Social Democratic principles and act on them. It is entirely consistent to argue for public spending decrease in the North and increase in the South base don the same principles.
My point is that SF is locked into a sectarian voting system at the Assembly that rewards nationalist intransigence ( on both sides ). SF will inevitably have to prioritise nationalism in those circumstances. My view is that claims for social justice will ring increasingly hollow when the Executive is seen to skate smilingly over the needs of the people that SF currently court.
On a lot of issues the only really “Nationalist” or “Unionist” different is that nationalism here is historically to the Left, and Unionism historically to the Right. That pattern does not always have to remain thus.
I think you very clearly are arguing for SF-lite, it is just that you want to replace their rhetoric with your own - a very laudable but, I believe, self defeating exercise.
I am of course, an idiot and freely admit it. Sinn Fein are arguing for “Eire Nua” and an “Island of Equals” and cite Tone. they also seem to be trying to shift away form “Socialism”, especially in the South. I am simply asking them to fulfil those promises, which I believe would not make them SF-lite but SF++ considering the difficultly in such an undertaking.
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 04:57 PMThere is another Protestant point of view on a United Ireland on Big Ulsterman this week--well worth the read.
http://bigulsterman.blogspot.com/Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 05:09 PMMayoman: That maybe isn’t the case as many people from what would be characterised as a ‘nationalist’-centric pool freely express their wish to be remain united with Britain.
The ‘nationalist’-centric pool being defined how, precisely? For your examples to match the Harvey Bicker case, they would have needed to be ex-SDLP councillors. Have you got a list? Would it be wise to publish it? For instance: SDLP councillors have been given a rough ride for joining policing boards without permission from SF, and the SDLP got loads of abuse as soon as Hume mentioned the term ‘post-nationalist’. In neither case had anyone actually crossed-over.
I suppose Turgon may answer you himself concerning the ‘contempt’ word - I never thought he meant it to represent his personal feelings. The list of names I gave surely point to intolerant sentiments on both sides.
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 06:36 PMReader: if they hadn;t crossed over, then what’s your point? That’s usual arguments over the length of a piece of string! Apples and oranges I would contend. I will withdraw the nationalist-centric part (clumsy argument!), and leave you to answer the plain question: is it right to hold someone who changes opinion in contempt?
Posted by on Mar 11, 2008 @ 10:31 PMThank you, FraserValley, for the link to Big Ulsterman. Now his reflections on the new dispensation really were refreshing and managed to combine hard-nosed realism with hopeful inspiration.
I do not expect though that his message will play well in the unionist boondocks but really it is his clearheaded realisation that Unionism is now a beaten docket that I should like to see addressed by Turgon and other unionist commentators who still cling to the dying vestiges of that stop-gap accomodation to reaction against the progress of the Irish nation which is all that Unionism was or ever thought to be even by its founding father, Edward Carson..
Posted by on Mar 12, 2008 @ 10:21 AMMayoman: if they hadn;t crossed over, then what’s your point?
Because they were given a hard time without having even gone so far as to cross over. But you still haven’t named any of the “many” who *have* crossed over and had an easy time - Gerry Fitt (not really crossed over), John Gorman (nationalist-centric pool?)
Mayoman: is it right to hold someone who changes opinion in contempt?
Of course not. I tend to move them up a single notch in my estimation for thinking for themselves. But whether it’s one of your un-named “many” or just Harvey Bicker, it doesn’t make them right. After all, I thought for myself and remained a Unionist. So that’s 2 notches up…
Posted by on Mar 12, 2008 @ 11:38 AM“Thank you, FraserValley, for the link to Big Ulsterman. Now his reflections on the new dispensation really were refreshing and managed to combine hard-nosed realism with hopeful inspiration.”
Yawn - was this not just because he said a UI was inevitable and he’s a prod and because he reckons Unionism is defeated - nothing new on show there - Been hearing this line for donkey’s years - maybe
its the prod saying it part....still balls though - no matter whether it’s Sinn Fein or Big Ulsterman doing the talking.....Posted by on Mar 12, 2008 @ 01:54 PMIf Big Ulsterman had actually presented his thoughts in a methodical and thorough fashion they would be possible to take seriously. As it is they’re just a counter-factual rambling mish-mash.
Posted by on Mar 12, 2008 @ 03:23 PMAn agreed repartition of NI would in my mind be prefereable to a UI brought about by a 50% +1 vote.
Sounds like a good idea to me. If certain communities would like to remain part of the UK let them. The new statlet would probably be called North Eastern Ireland.
And although i understand that Turgon’s surmising that Republicans may return to violence is genuine, it clearly illustrates that Unionists’ fears do not reflect the reality of the current situation. Apart from less than a handful of a few idiots on both sides, i would say nobody is even thinking of such action.
Posted by on Mar 12, 2008 @ 04:51 PMI think BU’s main point is not that Unionism has been defeated, but rather, that it has become irrevelant. From my own point of view, if the main thrust of Unionism is only to increase my sense of “feeling British” then it certainly isn’t relevant--it is probably moribund.
Posted by on Mar 12, 2008 @ 05:15 PM‘An agreed repartition of NI would in my mind be prefereable to a UI brought about by a 50% +1 vote.
Sounds like a good idea to me’
You can’t continually resegment countries in order to satisfy the wishes of particular cultural groupings and demographic changes in same. If you applied this throughout the UK then Birmingham would be part of Pakistan and the East end of London would refer to the Carribean as the ‘mainland’.
NI is the ultimate example that attempting this trick with countries that have been socio-cultural entities since the time of the vikings is a non-runner (or ‘beaten docket’ as another contributor described it).
The unionist negotiating position will deteriorate steadily in the future and they would be much better opening negotiations with the Republic from a position of relative strength rather than continuing to whistle No Surrender. Look at protestants there. Are they screaming about being deprived from mother England - and remember they had no negotiating position at all when the free state was created!
Surely it is also plain that the South is joining the rest of Europe in growing out of religion - so there must be hope that we can too.Posted by on Mar 12, 2008 @ 05:44 PM“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’”
Ah, but did it? Don’t forget the Republic is still stuffed full of trappings of Britishness, from the Crown over Monaghan courthouse to the Royal Dublin Society’s grounds to the war memorial in Cork. Granted, attempts were made to airbrush it out- like blowing up Nelson’s Pillar, and renaming streets and railway termini after IRA members plus the illfated attempt to rename Donegal Tyrconnell, but these were largely unsupported by the public.
And most of the republic was and is generally well disposed to the UK- certainly more than SF and Jackie Healy Rae style FFers would claim. Though naturally they want England to be stuffed at all sports- but thenm, who doesn’t?Posted by on Mar 13, 2008 @ 12:33 PM‘And although i understand that Turgon’s surmising that Republicans may return to violence is genuine,’
I can’t see republicans returning to violence . They have made too many political gains . They haven’t got their objective i.e a UI but they have learned that the gun and bomb will not bring about a UI-in fact they have brought about the contrary.
Posted by on Mar 13, 2008 @ 02:25 PM‘so there must be hope that we can too.’
Winston Churchill was in two minds on this one -
“Then came the Great War: Every institution, almost, in the world was strained. Great Empires have been overturned. The whole map of Europe has been changed. The position of countries has been violently altered. The modes of thought of men, the whole outlook on affairs, the grouping of parties, all have en countered violent and tremendous changes in the deluge of the world. But as the deluge subsides and the waters fall short, we see the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone emerging once again. The integrity of their quarrel is one of the few institutions that has been unaltered in the cataclysm which has swept the world. (1922)
Earlier on in his political career the younger Churchill was a little more positive .
“Half a province cannot obstruct forever the reconciliation between the British and Irish peoples.” (1912)
Wonder what he would say in 2008 if he could .
Perhaps something along the lines of
‘This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.’
‘
Posted by on Mar 13, 2008 @ 02:44 PMGreenflag,
I am very baised by Elenwe but I really like thise dreary steeples of Fermanagh.Posted by on Mar 13, 2008 @ 03:00 PM‘but I really like these dreary steeples of Fermanagh. ‘
And long may you continue to do so. Some might say that Churchill’s last quote above is a reference to rainfall in Fermanagh :)
IIRC a tourist once asked a 10 year old in Fermanagh.
Does it always rain here?. I’ve been here for 2 weeks and it’s rained every day ?’
‘I would’nt know sir , I’m only 10 years old .
Posted by on Mar 13, 2008 @ 04:32 PMLOL,
Thank you for that GreenflagPosted by on Mar 13, 2008 @ 04:54 PM
