Never apologise. But explain. Sinn Féin and the dissidents. April 23, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Northern Ireland, The North.trackback
What an interesting event that was, held in Tyrone last night, where the leadership of Sinn Féin came out and defended their position as against dissident Republican groups.
Splintered Sunrise made a very relevant point that whatever about the charges, the reality is that SF remains strongly wedded to pushing Republican politics. Or to quote:
Here’s the thing. It’s often said in dissident circles that the Provisionals have given up on the goal of the 32-county socialist republic. But, while you can make some rhetorical hay around them sitting in the Stormont executive, it’s not true to say they’ve ditched the goal. It’s on the first page of their programme, after all. You can talk about people being corrupted, or institutionalised by a process they thought was going in another direction, or simply worn down by war-weariness, but you’re still, in the main, talking about people who want to be republicans on some level. That’s why the parades, and the tributes to past heroes; that’s why Martin McGuinness was talking just there about winning the republic by 2014.
I think that’s a very important insight, because whatever about the complaints as to their selling out, or indeed the critiques which are offered, anyone who deals with them on any sort of regular basis will know that while the tactics have changed the strategy remains the same. Whether those tactics are effective is a different matter.
But a couple of thoughts. Look at the optics There was Gerry and Martin and indeed Michelle and Bairbre. Indeed here was a sight that, for those further afield, might have been a little unfamiliar bombarded as they are with images of Ian and Martin. And then Peter and Martin. And Gerry in Washington or Dublin or Belfast flanked by a phalanx from SF. The two men were in open shirts. Iranian revolutionary chic as it were (very Tony Gregory as it happens, and that’s a compliment). And, no doubt, that was quite deliberate.
As was the language. This was blunt stuff indeed.
“Some former activists, including former IRA volunteers, hark back to the 70s or 80s,” he told a crowd of more than 200 people in Galbally. This is not the 70s or 80s.”
“And some have formed armed groups which purport to be the IRA — the CIRA, the RIRA, or Oglaigh na h’Eireann, or the INLA, or the IRLA – None of these groups are the IRA.”
“They have no right to hijack its name or to mimic its actions.
“They cannot match the IRA for ingenuity, for resourcefulness, for courage or capacity.” Mr Adams told the audience that the IRA had taken the armed struggle as far as possible but had sued for peace when that became an option.
Talk about laying it on the line. Or indeed not attempting to give any sort of sanitised apologia for past actions. How this plays with their partners in government will be interesting to see. But the realpolitic of it is absolutely breath-taking. Particularly the final assertion.
And it’s an interesting comment because, whatever one feels about where SF is today, it really does show up the pretensions of dissident groups. I mentioned it earlier in the week – and so did Splintered Sunrise. The old ’strategy of tension’ approach seems a bit thin as a serious means to undermining the Executive, or more broadly the Good Friday Agreement.
Previously I’ve dealt with some of the myths which sustain dissident Republicanism. There is the one of a ‘better’ more intensive war. And here was that myth addressed, not in full – no doubt that will come later and sporadically, but in part.
What too of McGuinness who admitted that his comments about people being ‘traitors to Ireland’ might have offended some Republicans. But he also noted that he was ‘proud to have been a former member of the IRA’.
What’s fascinating to me about this is that unlike other generations of Republicans who have taken the more or less constitutional path in recent times this one seems genuinely unapologetic of their actions. It’s hard to believe that some in various parties would have come out and attested to their pride at – say – being involved in the Officials. Indeed strenuous efforts were made to put clear blue water between them and that past. Even Sean MacBride was circumspect about his own background back in the day. And where not disavowed there has been a tendency to write it off as near-youthful exuberance. A phase as it were.
But not Adams and McGuinness. The argument runs something along these lines. The struggle remained correct. The means by which that struggle was prosecuted remained essentially correct to the point where they had no further utility. And when alternatives that were satisfactory to Republicanism were presented they were taken. Which was also correct.
It is this that makes it difficult for dissident Republicanism to easily counter Sinn Féin. At least at this point.
But the message was equally uncompromising as regards the SF attitude to dissidents. Adams said that “Republicans should focus on policy and actions that would help deliver a United Ireland”
In a message to dissidents, he said: “Militarism, elitism or adventurism is no substitute to strategy, for tactics, for common sense.” He said some dissidents were wedded to the use of violence as a tactic while others were motivated by ego and opportunism, but he said all were wrong.
“Some take exception to remarks by republican leaders and seize on these in an entirely self-serving and negative way,” he said.
“Others threaten to kill us, or they actually attack our homes or offices.” He added: “Let me make it clear that Sinn Fein is not going to roll over and surrender our struggle to any of these elements.”
One line from the Irish Times report is revealing, although to what degree it is true of the broader situation is difficult to assess.
The event did not attract protests from dissident republican groups and questions from the audience were dominated by bread and butter issues including education reform.
Firstly, at what point – if ever – are dissident Republicans going to go head to head against Sinn Féin in terms of protests? Their general unwillingness to do so would seem to indicate that they have yet to garner sufficient support and that they also are hesitant to do so. Secondly, if correct, this concentration on everyday may indicate that much of the theological debate (if I can use that term) is restricted to elite groups within Republicanism which would seem to minimise the short to medium term threat to Sinn Féin and its project.
Splintered argues rightly in my view, in relation to the fact that SF has been involved in protests against some of the actions taken by the PSNI in the wake of the recent murders, that at some time SF will have to decide which side of the fence it sits on. And yet there is part of me that wonders whether that decision will have to be taken sooner rather than later. Sinn Féin has proven itself remarkably adept at striking broad based positions that seek to diminish contradiction. Later I’d suspect. Later.
WBS — if SF is so clear about its political project, why do you think they spend so much time talking about the dissidents?
WBS,
But what constitutes semi-constitutional? SF have put the Army Council to pasture, decomissioned (or convinced the IRA to do so) and any members found engaging in hanky panky (“criminality” or not talking when told to ala McCartney) are being expelled. They tell members to talk to police about crimes and have refused to use old IRA muscle that it would have used in the old days (such as the feud in West Belfast). What else is there really. This refusal to apologize for the past? If that’s all or the allowing the whiff of sulfur to linger then they will semi-constitutional for quite some time to come, but they seem to be taking their constitutional knocks fairly well without jumping right back onto the other horse when an election doesn’t go their way. Which to me would be the real litmus test of the two horse analogy.
Well in a way Bakunin (and incidentally I’ll be clear I think SFs project remains a Republican one but far from necessarily a left one) I think one of the striking things is how little they’ve talked about dissident groupings in the past number of years. It does make sense for them to talk now in the wake of the past month. But underlying that is the problem that when you talk about people you give them publicity. A tricky problem for SF.
yourcousin, that’s very true, but I don’t think that their rhetorical lack of apology should be diminished. That is different, fundamentally different, to other groups in the past who took the constitutional route who tended then to ignore the problematic aspects of struggle and idealise the more distant events. Incidentally I’m not suggesting it’s right or wrong. I don’t know.
WBS — I would disagree a bit. I think SF have been forced to dismiss, criticize, and demonize the dissidents from 1998 onwards (RSF has been ignored and can be ignored). I don’t think they do this because the dissidents (broadly defined) represent a way forward — instead, if you are going to transform your movement to the extent to which they have, you have to nip in the bud all potential political alternatives.
The key word is potential.
Isn’t that Gerry Adams’ history — what would O’Brady, Bell, McKearney, McKevitt, Hughes, McIntyre, Catney, Rice and many others say?
Does SF have a republican political project, just because they say they do? Whether a united Ireland is mentioned on page 1 or not doesn’t mean much. That project has to be assessed by what the party does, not what it says. The move on policing was big, maybe as significant as entering Stormont.
Sinn Fein has been transformed into an electoral machine — Votes and votes! That is Moses and the prophets. When people make their mark, it can only go in one direction, there can be no alternative.
Dissident activity, IRA history, or definitions of republicanism will not be allowed to get in the way.
Never apologise, you got that right.
That’s a fair analysis (and ironically one that I hear from old WP comrades as well). A thought that struck me recently which goes someway to what you say is the idea that SF might ultimately be a bit like the CSU in Germany, a sort of regional party. It’s not quite the same, but you look at it’s North Eastern strength and it’s relative weakness across the island it sure looks a bit like it. I probably have to think more about it.
I do agree that voting has been a substitute. But I’d imagine that by their own lights Adams et al are entirely sincere in their belief that their strategy is correct. And again, I think you’re right that that necessitated alternative voices coming to the fore. SF were lucky in so much as the alternatives weren’t very alternative particularly on a socialist axis (perhaps with the exception of Éirígí, perhaps not).
Nor do I disagree that policing was a huge step and maybe you’re right, it was equal to going ointo Stormont. But… the counter argument that local and political oversight is important isn’t something I can dismiss out of hand.
On the other hand I don’t buy in to the Moloney thesis that all this was pre-ordained from 78 or so onwards. Looks to me around the mid-80s the penny dropped.
iam a former member of SF. not opposed to them still supportive. for the majority of the last ten years SF blatently ignored the disidents. main reason was that to engage would be to rehash debates that had already been settled in the party. waste of time, others would say a conspiricy but it wasn’t, the mentality was, get on with it.
though in the last year before the two brits and the copper they have been comeing up on the agenda more and being honest, the movement is fractoring. how many republican groups is there now, six? four of them came out of SF. iam not saying SF is spliting but it is fractoring. the palistineation of republicanism… maybe… hopefully not, but while no one group is big enough in comparision to the provo’s, add them all together and they can occupy a noticeable place on SF flank that SF vactated.
That’s an interesting point. You’re right there is a fracturing. But what seems to be happening is that instead of an alternative broad based grouping becoming established we’re seeing different threads from SF, a militaristic one, a theologically Republican one (RSF), a socialist inclined one (Éirígí) appearing. And the ability of SF to contain all those strands since they still presumably exist within it today isn’t seen in any competing group. It’s a broad church. Difficult to set up another one with any ease.
yeah SF would still de a broad church. never taught about it in terms of militeristic teological and economic. not sure i agree totaly. probably how each group likes to portay themselve but generaly the diference imo is personalities and the time the people left. i know one or two realy practicle level headed RSFers (shock) one or two eirgi people that are about as interested in socialism as a four year old is in quatum macanics.
not to make broad stoke catagorisations. there are plenty of pious people in RSF and eirigi activists baptised in the socialist faith but
think stereotypes have formed around groups that the groups themselves aren’t to offended with but scratch the surface and theres a sameness, not to unlike SF.
maybe iam being un fair, and iam not taking away that these groups where set up and maintained through genuine and honest belief that what SF was doing or heading in there opinion was wrong.
if your saying that each group is stunted because they are from one praticlurar tradition in the republican philosaphy again i’d disagree. they all have a militeristic streek even eirigi but bearing in mind the provo’s lasted longer in the field than any other generation in irish history and still didn’t win. how can you build support with that stareing you in the face. who’d buy it. i’d put there inability to make a bigger impact
1 down to personalities that maintain division
2 out of step with the people at the present time.
though both could change
shea, I wouldn’t disagree with you in your third paragraph. I guess I’d argue that it’s not just that they’re stunted because of tradition/philosophy but also because of 1 and 2. And most importantly because of the truth you point to that SF wasn’t able to succeed on its own terms but had to compromise to an extent. And also because SF is there in the first place and has a commanding position… although to echo you, that too could change in the long term (on the other hand, and I don’t mean this in a bad sense, if we look at how initial party dominance operates we could think about how in the South FF has remained dominant until more or less now).
The struggle remained correct. The means by which that struggle was prosecuted remained essentially correct to the point where they had no further utility. And when alternatives that were satisfactory to Republicanism were presented they were taken. Which was also correct.
I think this catches something quite important about SF and its self-image, or at least SF in the Adams period (I don’t remember much about it pre-Adams). Quite Hegelian, really – SF is the Party, and the Party is always where the struggle is happening, so if the Party changes tactics that must be because the struggle has itself moved on. At the risk of asking a stupid question, where does the CP fit into the history of physical-force Republicanism?
That’s a great way of putting it. Although I’ll bet it’s never been articulated quite like that…
Actually, that’s a very interesting question indeed, and its only in reading some of the CPI and CPNI stuff in recent times that I’ve got any sort of a handle on the nuances of their approach. The CP was to my mind critical but not utterly condemnatory (at least not in the way OSF/WP later were) seeing it as an irrelevancy, perhaps not least because it had a sort of co-ownership of the NI Civil Rights Association along with what was to become OSF/WP. Also because it was split pre 69/70 into the Irish Workers Party (no relation to OSF/WP) in the South and a CPNI in the North, which my read, FWIW seems to have given a certain spin to their approaches. They then merged. They’d been a single body pre 40s on the island…
This might give you a sense of the CPs approach…
http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2008/01/20/the-left-archive-armed-struggle-an-open-letter-to-pira-the-communist-party-of-ireland-1988/?preview=true&preview_id=943&preview_nonce=ce76987a1f
Not much of a history of joint working or popular frontage, then – not with the Provos, anyway. But I guess partiinost isn’t exclusively a CP thing!
That way of thinking is very familiar to me from the way SF used to pitch to the British Left, and in particular those bits of it which thought supporting Republicanism mandated supporting PIRA (and the bits which polemicised against those bits). I was struck (enough to write it down, fortunately) by a line in Adams’s address to the Socialist Conference back in 1989 -
“And let’s not get hung up on the hook of supporting the IRA. I’ve met people who had a more principled stand on the IRA than the IRA has! If you do support the IRA, good! Well done! But that’s not the issue.”
I think there may have been a touch of sarcasm there – “will all you armchair revolutionaries please stop going on about the IRA, don’t you think my job’s hard enough already?”. But what’s more important is the conviction – quite genuinely held, I think – that when it comes down to it it’s all the same thing. If you support SF and the IRA, that’s good; if you support SF but not the IRA, that’s good too. Just support us, that’s the main thing. Uncritically, of course, because as British leftists we should back off and let the Irish people decide their own destiny, and therefore… um… don’t criticise SF.