Monday, November 26, 2007
So what is a Republican party?
El Mat has been told by some of his fellow writers that the SDLP cannot be defined as a Republican party because that is not the way it is perceived by others. That is, as he points out, an almost impossible point to prove one way or the other. So, he asks, what makes one party a Republican when they say they are, and another, which makes precisely the same claim, not?
Mick Fealty @ 06:12 PM
A republican party in Ireland is one commited to the establishment of an independent, democratic, secular republic ruled by the people of no property through building the unity of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter, and acting in alliance with other progressive countries in pursuit of a better world.
Which rules out the SDLP and all other communalist nationalists.
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 07:06 PMSwearing an oath of allegiance to a monarch and being a Republican are not happy bedfellows, regardless of nationality. The two systems are pretty much antithetical. Accepting knighthoods, lordships or peerages from the British monarch would be another thing no republican would do.
I for one would not tell another person who or what they are but pointing out contradictions or inconsistencies in their professed position is perfectly fine. The SDLP and its members are speaking out of both sides of their mouth on this issue.
In the Irish context being a Republican means loyalty to the 1916 proclamation and the 1918 election that validated it. It used to be that recognition of partition - the 6 counties or the Free State - was incompatible with being a Republican. So obviously even within Ireland the definition evolves.
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 07:11 PMSiphonophore-
“The SDLP and its members are speaking out of both sides of their mouth on this issue.”
The SDLP does not accpet lordships or any other British honours.
“In the Irish context being a Republican means loyalty to the 1916 proclamation and the 1918 election that validated it.”
So what of people who believed in a non-Monarchical system pre-1916. Did the IRB and ICA only become ‘republican’ upon signing the proclamation and were therefore pro-Monarchy before this? Therein lies the problem- the monopolisation of the term ‘republicanism’. Surely in an ‘Irish context’ and every other context it should be based on policies, ideology and general outlook rather than being prescriptive and adhering to one narrow set of beliefs and interpretation of history.
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 07:20 PMTo scrape things down to the nape…
republic: A political order whose heaof state is not a monarch and, in modern times, is usually a president, with supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
Arguably, the IRB, et al, did not become “republican” until after the demise of the “Irish Free State” and the establishment of an independent Ireland, wholly free of the British monarchy.
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 07:37 PMOne question I’d like to propose is why the SDLP deem it so necessary to try and big up their republican credentials. They will NEVER out-green Sinn Fein on this one and their efforts to do so only prove that they’re just another inward-looking, parochial party. Unfortunately that seems to be what the electorate want.
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 07:52 PMI do not wish to intrude on nationalist debate (I do mean that) but may I add my tuppence worth?
The term republican is one which is very heavily loaded for unionists. I know what republican means in a technical sense. However, to Northern Irish unionists for the last 30 years and more it has meant supporters of the sectarian murder of them, their friends, relatives and anyone else whom the IRA decided was a legitimate target on any given day.
I suspect that frequently nationalists had a similar position. I remember when at university the student’s union leaders were extremely angry if anyone called them republicans even though several did end up in her majesty’s hotels for active involvement in the IRA.
I have a feeling that el blogador and co are trying to reclaim the term republican from the murderers and their cheerleaders. That is fair enough and I do not criticise it. Remember, however that in the process of so doing there is the danger that people will forget that there was actually a huge difference between the SDLP and other nationalists / Irish / catholics etc. and the IRA’s friends. That is, that although unionists may not have liked your politics, they may at times have thought Hume was too nice to Adams (the criticisms work in reverse of course regarding unionists and loyalist terrorists). But, and this is a big but; the vast majority of unionists know there was a huge difference. The SDLP etc. did not believe in murdering Prods.
Those whom we traditionally refered to as republicans did.
Incidentally I do try to reclaim the term fundamentalist as simply describing one who adheres to the fundamentals of their religion, rather than a raving extremist who supports murder. There are similar problems
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 07:54 PMAs I said at El Blogador as well, we’re not even talking about real Republicanism but the ideology known in this country as Republicanism that is really some kind of anti-British/pro-Irish nationalist/separatist/republican combination.
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 07:55 PMcould i suggest that irish republicanism is different beast than the classical republicanism of rosseau.
to be anti monarchial was only a convenience in ireland as the british system was a monarchy. what if england had of been a imperialistic republic?
i would suggest that “republicans” in ireland are motivated by anti english or nationalist feelings rather than the high ideal of Jean Jaques
did arthur griffith (sf founder) not argue the case for dual monarchy?
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 07:58 PMTurgon,
I’m not a nationalist. I’m an internationalist, as all republicans are supposed to be. So this is not a nationalist debate as far as I’m concerned.
In response to Harry, republicanism as a political philosophy developed in Ireland exactly along the Rousseauist lines it took in America and France. Unfortunately people like Arthur Griffith and other narrow-minded and often sectarian nationalists have been able to corner the market on the term.
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 08:05 PMaye, on that point about the South Down and London Derry Party becoming latent republicans.
i noticed in todays irish news a rather hardline article from Tom kelly concerning the tough measures to be taken against hoods and hoodies in our society
i was wondering how long it would be to the SDLP set up it’s kneecapping brigade.
does tom not have OBE from the queen?
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 08:05 PMharry: “to be anti monarchial was only a convenience in ireland as the british system was a monarchy. what if england had of been a imperialistic republic? “
Were that the case, then the British would not have botched their occupation policies so badly and things might have turned out differently.
If one assumes an equally botched colonial policy, then the main change likley becomes a difference in timing, rather than a difference in outcome—how war-weary were the electorate and when.
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 08:09 PMGaribaldy,
I know your views and posts and in my humble opinion (I do not like text shortening) you are a true republican but not a cheerleader if you see what I mean. As an aside Elenwe (the wife) has pretty republican views being unconvinced about the monarchy. She tends to the “There is none king save Christ alone” position. I suspect you know on whose grave that was inscribed (if I am right) and he was a republican though I will not start singing his praises here lest I am hated even more than ever.
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 08:12 PMDread Cthulhu
i accept your arguement about how imperialism owuld have operated under a republican govt in england,
but would the irish anti colonial element still have been republican?
i suggest that irb, sf, etc co-opted republicanism as it was the opposite of what englad had.
not that they were commited its principles
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 08:30 PMI’m a republican in the true sense as described in ElBlogador.
I abhor everything the IRA has done since the Treaty was voted for by the Dail all those years ago.
I believe that the SDLP are republicans.
It is a huge shame that the name republican seems to have been monopolised here by one particular party.
I think you can be a unionist and a republican.
Here endeth my sermon.Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 08:32 PMharry: “but would the irish anti colonial element still have been republican? “
Depends if they held the same political aspiriation for what followed the colonial power. If they still aspired to establish a republic in the aftermath of the anti-colonial war, then, yes, they still would have been republicans.
harry: “i suggest that irb, sf, etc co-opted republicanism as it was the opposite of what englad had. not that they were commited its principles “
I would respectfully disagree—the fact that, following the winding-down of the Irish Free State, the Republic of Ireland was established, wholly lacking a monarch and having a body of elected representatives answerable to the people would tend to undermine your position.
That doesn’t mean I have a great deal of faith in the bona fides of their modern counterparts…
JoeCanuck: “I abhor everything the IRA has done since the Treaty was voted for by the Dail all those years ago. “
Just as WW II was the inevitable aftermath of the botched and short-sighted “peace” that followed the first World War, the IRA’s activities following the Treaty were inevitable, given the “fudge” of the issue of Northern Ireland.
JoeCanuck: “I think you can be a unionist and a republican. “
Only if they wish to end the monarchy and establish a republic, Joe…
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 08:43 PMOf course Dread. There are lots of republicans across the water, in Parliament even.
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 08:46 PMjoeCanuck: “There are lots of republicans across the water, in Parliament even. “
I’ll start to take them seriously when I see the House of Lords fully closed.
Last I checked, the carpets in Parliment are still red and green.
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 08:58 PMDread,
I know this shows my extreme stupidity (I am one of the prodiban after all) but what is the relevance of the red and green carpets to monarchy?
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 09:04 PMThere isn’t any political party in the south that is not republican, nor are there any individual TDs who advocate other forms of government such as monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, etc, so all Irish people elect republicans and no non-republicans are elected. In the north, there is only one mainstream political party that is republican: the SDLP. PSF, contrary to its own propaganda, is not a republican party. A republican must accept the right of the people to exercise self-determination and must not use violence against the will of the Irish people as expressed via self-determination. Indeed, PSF don’t even accept the right of the Irish republic to exist, never mind freely elect its own government and determine its own future. They are a fascist movement that seeks to advance its own interests by the use of violence. It is only in the last few years that PSF have become quasi-democrats. But it’s unlikely that those of a profoundly fascist mindset will ever grasp the ideals of republicanism.
Regarding unity and republicanism within the Irish context: that game is de facto over. They both settled for political careers within the UK. Their voters will follow suit and drop the constitutional issued in due course.
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 09:04 PMTurgon: “I know this shows my extreme stupidity (I am one of the prodiban after all) but what is the relevance of the red and green carpets to monarchy?”
Simply another joyous presentation of the British love of class distinction, Turgon.
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 09:09 PMSDLP’s roots are in Daniel O’Connell’s doctrine of “peaceable, legal and constitutional” democracy and that is its strength. Worrying about a political label, “republicanism,” which has a nasty history in Ireland, a record of failure and alienates Protestants is a pointless waste of energy and certainly not a way to win more votes.
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 09:17 PMDread, I have one spare bedroom with red walls and another one with green walls. I’m a bit confused; should H.M. drop by and need a room for the night, which one should I offer her?
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 09:26 PMSurely you can’t be a Republican and also be committed to the UK Joe, is it not a monarchist state by it’s very essence?.
There’s a number of things which irk slightly when the SDLP try to affirm their Republican credentials.
It seems to be a bit of a Johnny come lately claim on the Republican mantle and I can’t see how they can square their Republicanism with their MP’s taking the oath of allegiance to the British Head of State.
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 09:31 PMPaul, there are not a few MPs in the British Parliament who have openly proclaimed their republicanism.. If they had their way, there would be a vote in parliament to abolish the monarchy.
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 09:34 PMTurgon,
I do indeed know who you are referring to. The right attitude to kings, but the wrong attitude to secularism.
New Yorker,
I’d agree with you on the SDLP and O’Connell. Both were interested only in the politics of Catholic communalism, and opposed the republican message of the unity of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter.
Posted by on Nov 26, 2007 @ 10:02 PM
