Democratic Left July 26, 2012
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, The Left.trackback
I was thinking recently about my time in Democratic Left. Brief it was too, about two, maybe three years at most. And what it did was perhaps utterly counterintuitive to what might have been expected. It pushed me from a passive sort of Republicanism that I had developed inside the WP to a much more active position. In a way this was curious, seeing how DL was almost unable to understand that a similar dynamic to that which occurred in the Workers’ Party where it shifted as Official Sinn Féin from a political/militarist position to a purely political one could be repeated a generation or so later with the Provisionals. What was most odd was that a party founded in part on attempting to avoid the evasions that were extant with orthodox Communism could completely ignore, or be resistant, to the realities of what was happening within PIRA and PSF. This was reflected in a profound suspicion of the peace process, which by the time DL was established was well under way.
I’ve mentioned this before, but one moment that really stuck with me was when a delegate from an inner city DL branch stood up at the Annual Conference in 1993 or 1994 and argued that ‘even the dogs in the streets’ knew that the IRA was moving towards a ceasefire but the rhetoric coming from DL reps was one that refused to admit that that was happening. I recall sitting in Liberty Hall in the audience and thinking, hmmm… that’s me out of here. Because it seemed to me then that in some ways this was worse than being evasive about the negative aspects of the Soviets. The latter was an issue which simple geography could lend a detachment, not laudable – but understandable. But this was something that was happening on our doorstep.
I was gone by the time the coalition came around and in a way I’m glad of that. Having been through one split I had no enthusiasm to walk away during another de facto one (albeit the numbers who left at the coalition seem to have been relatively low).
What I think in retrospect is that there was, for all of the evident ambitions of the party representatives, a space to the left of Labour. We know that now, that indeed that space is considerable. I’ve mentioned before. If one puts together the numbers of ULA and left Independent TDs one will see there are about six, perhaps seven if we include Ming Flanagan, left of centre, and five ULA.
That’s 12 TDs. About the numbers that the LP had during much of the 1970s and 1980s. Throw in the 14 SF TDs, and accepting there are caveats about how left wing all of them would be – albeit most would seem familiar to most traditional social democrats from the 20th century (conservative social values of some and all) and we see not merely a space to the left of the LP but an expanse.
DL’s ultimate ultimate function seems, in retrospect – and entirely unconsciously – to have been a conveyer between a fair porition of the vote that the WP developed and that which SF subsequently inherited. This is, of course, a major irony given the ferocious anti-Republicanism of many in DL but the dynamic was extant none the less. Proof? Well consider how the left vote didn’t expand when DL merged with the LP. Instead what tended to happen was that the DL TDs managed to retain their original WP or DL vote but were unable to expand upon it.
It speaks of a terrible lack of vision that they could believe that a party with six TDs could be non-viable. But, and I think this is testament to the character of many, though not all, of the individual TDs there was remarkably little effort to grow the party. The focus was strongly on the individual TDs rather than on a broader and national (in the purely technical and electoral sense) and internationalist vision.
Do I think the world, or this small portion of it, would have been better if DL had survived. I’ve very mixed emotions in that regard. Their inability to engage with how Ireland was changing during this period suggests that deep rooted approaches learned in the WP days by some, were very problematic and were blocks to development. And yet, and yet, an avowedly left of Labour, right of Marxist-Leninist political formation in opposition to neo-liberalism and with a strong line on social issues would have been of positive benefit. Never more so than today.
But I wonder if realistically they could transcend their past as well as they thought they could. That their final destination was the Labour Party suggests that that was not feasible.
I’ve always regarded DL’s views on the National Question as a bit like watching surgical debridement of a diabetic foot – repugnant yet fascinating.
DL was effectively Unionist in practice – whether it was the constant “lovebombing” of Unionists (afaik Ross was one of the first party leaders to meet Trimble after his election as UUP leader) or the knee jerk criticism of anything SF or the SDLP did. How aware the party’s voters were of this? It would certainly have made me think twice about giving them a preference.
“It speaks of a terrible lack of vision that they could believe that a party with six TDs could be non-viable. But, and I think this is testament to the character of many, though not all, of the individual TDs there was remarkably little effort to grow the party.”
Money was a major problem for the party according to Rafter. He mentioned the quite significant Workers’ Party debt it inherited and the fact that the party couldn’t access funds due to the size of it’s Dail group. If it had sounder finances the party would’ve certainly been able to expand in areas such as Kildare North and Limerick East which would’ve been realistic targets looking at the figures.
And in case anyone doesn’t know what surgical debridement is:
I very seriously doubt that the attitude towards the provisionals of DL would have bothered any of their voters that much in the mid-1990s. People seem to have forgotten just how utterly toxic the provos were in the early to mid 1990s for I would say the vast majority of people in the south. As I’ve pointed out before, I think that some of the debates on CLR on various issues and positions taken by people in the 1970s to the 1990s forget that simple fact, and so have a slightly unreal feel to them (not aimed at you personally).
As for the putative debt. An excuse to justify the TDs doing what they wanted.
I very seriously doubt that the attitude towards the provisionals of DL would have bothered any of their voters that much in the mid-1990s. People seem to have forgotten just how utterly toxic the provos were in the early to mid 1990s for I would say the vast majority of people in the south. As I’ve pointed out before, I think that some of the debates on CLR on various issues and positions taken by people in the 1970s to the 1990s forget that simple fact, and so have a slightly unreal feel to them (not aimed at you personally).
As for the putative debt. An excuse to justify the TDs doing what they wanted.
That’s a very interesting point about toxicity in the South. I’d agree it existed, but it existed in certain strands, as indeed it has continued to to this day. I don’t think it was all pervasive or particularly deep beyond specific responses to specific incidents or again amongst certain strands. And I think it was centred on the use of political violence. If it were I think it would have been impossible for SF to see polling figures in the contemporary period exceeding 20 per cent. In other words once armed struggle was removed as a factor, or part removed, SF itself wasn’t as much of a problem as violence was.
And the hunger strikes from even earlier suggest that once violence was decoupled from politics there was a much greater support. Of course functionally the distinction might be academic, SF as a political project in the south took years after the beginnings of the peace process to achieve critical mass let alone outstrip predecessors.
Though I wasn’t really talking about broader perceptions but more about my response to the DL approach. It really seemed to me to be borne of an inability to believe SF could take a similar route. But more importantly in the very communities that DL was seeking votes – and those voters in part seem to have gone SFwards subsequently so there is something of a disconnect between what DL held to in relation to Republicanism and where the voters were willing to vote – it seemed also to speak of a blindness to how actual SF actions, cessations etc might/would be received. And in a way that speaks of other problems. So keen were the DL crew ( or part of them) to ignore their own past they put themselves ironically in a position where they weren’t able to defend themselves and their project by saying ‘well we learned certain lessons a decade and a half and more ago…’ etcetera etcetera.
Btw apologies email acting up, can receive but can’t send ( and likewise to anyone trying to contact me – hope to be in a position to answer at weekend)
I was responding more to Rhine than yourself, but I take the point about the politics not being the issue as much as the violence, and about the hunger strikes (at least up to a point as that was presented as a vote for human rights and to save lives rather than an endorsement of the Provo/INLA campaigns), but if we talk about toxicity existing in strands, we have to acknowledge that the strands in which it existed were much, much deeper and wider 20 to 25-odd years ago than they are today. For the overwhelming majority of southern opinion, the provos were beyond the pale. This carried over to some extent into the later 1990s (the second and permanent ceasefire was only 1997 remember) and beyond, though seeing Adams and McGuinness with Mandela, Clinton, Blair etc or talking about peace on the TV every night undoubtedly had an impact on changing perceptions (in my view the real reason decommissioning took so long, to keep their profile as high as possible as long as possible).
Yet on toxicity, in 1992 DL was on 2.8 per cent, SF on… 1.6. Of course DL wasn’t for all the semi unionist rehetoric The Other.. notes above anywhere as toxic as SF during that period but… all fairly marginal nonetheless. Indeed without question WP was the oly serious contender during that period left of labour.
I’d add that of course it’s nigh on impossible to say DL and SF were analogous in terms of programme much less WP.
I’m tempted to say that both were toxic in the eyes of the electorate, albeit for very different reasons, and at different levels.
I should add it was striking to me how much more narrow DL was compared to the WP despite the rhetoric.
That split did no favours at all.
Garibaldy: Its pretty much a given that SF were repellent to certain section of voters at that time. But DL’s stance on the North would’ve been repellent – between the brown nosing of the unionists to criticizing John Hume and other constitutional nationalists.
“As I’ve pointed out before, I think that some of the debates on CLR on various issues and positions taken by people in the 1970s to the 1990s forget that simple fact, and so have a slightly unreal feel to them (not aimed at you personally).”
One can say the same about most discussions on controversial historical events not just about the PIRA and SF at the time.
WbS: Describing them as Unionists was a bit strong but again as I’ve said above, it’s a perception that I would have.
P.S. Also sorry for that video on debridement. Never a good idea to go online after drinking 10 cups of coffee.
I take your point about the controversial historical things more generally, just that it has happened a lot here on subjects of particular interest to me. You’d get the impression sometimes that it was everyone else and not PSF or people broadly sympathetic to it that was out of sync is all.
I take the point about criticising Hume too, although that seems to me to be of a different order than the provos when it came to annoying people in the south.
No problem TheOrherRiver… Tbh I go some way with you on he unionism point. Not that the DL were unionist but thy adopted incredibly uncritical analyses of unionism and also an unwillingness to accept it Is as much a nationalism as Republicanism/Irish nationalism.
Whether they were functionally unionis is a different point, but it just shows how iodd their stance was at the very time SF was well nder way towards primarily political activity.
SF’s orientation towards political activity and focus in the early 90s were down to two key things; A state shoot to kill policy which was working e.g Loughall and Gibraltar and a state backed Loyalist sectarian murder campaign which saw more innocent catholics killed in 1993/94 than IRA targets. This truth I believe is lost on the dissident factions, sadly. I could see the 1998 agreement on the cards in ’91. The republican movement were toxic in large parts of the south, at the time. But the movement was still doing well despite censorship and oppositon from the ‘democratic’ oppositon including sticks and DL. SF have continued to build on this anti establishment stance, even as many woud say they are now very much part of the establishment. Just a view!
I’d bet those events you mentioned focused minds and were a big part of it, but I’d add one more that the logistics of an armed insurrection were getting more an more difficult through the 80s as British technological and human surveillance and control methods tightened up and tightened up.
I was discussing this with a friend last night, once one loses the direct lineal connection with earlier IRAs does that to some extent, and who knows how much, decouple even the minimal residual ( and I use the following term advisedly ) legitimation that previous iterations had? i.e. this supposed ‘new’ IRA is now a new formation which is two steps removed from PIRA.
I find it surprising that you suggest there are 12 left-wing TDs in the Dail – a list would make interesting reading.
Ah now, I was scrupulous in not using the term left-wing directly in relation to the 12 or whatever, not least because of the very specific use if the term some have. Left of centre and left of labour sufficed for me
Okay then – please list 12 ‘left of centre’ TDs
Not sure where the mystery is here, I outlined it above albeit without names.
If we restrict it to the Technical Group and indos I’d see it as Wallace, O’Sullivan, McGrath (ish), Pringle, Halligan, Murphy, Ming, plus ULA.
Spread it out to SF and there’s a fair few I’d regard as fairly clearly left of centre.
By the by, all of the above mentioned have the caveats mentioned in th original post but… All are in this Dail further left than the LP a least by my reckoning.
Well there was not mention of SF in the OP – and while there might be a case for arguing on an indivudal basis, they are all members of a party that is not ‘left of centre’.
As for your list of 12
Wallace – aside from opposing the war on Iraq, supporting the campaign against the Household tax and supporting the Dail motion on abortion rights there really is nothing to give him ‘left’ credentials
O’Sullivan has been wishy-washy at best – she has been lacklustre in the Dail and been involved in little of consequence outside of it. She is still living off Gregory’s reputation more than anything else.
McGrath – the man who backed FF/GP for a few crumbs from the table and then tried to portray himself as king-maker for the Presidential election. the guy is a chancer of the highest order.
Pringle – yes
Halligan – as you well know he left the WP to vote for water charges in Waterford
Murphy – left the WP for DL and then into the LP which she left probably because she perceived a difficulty getting elected in the same constituency as Stagg as a LP candidate – indeed Stagg, not wanting competition, would probably have stopped her standing.
Ming – even yourself regard it as a stretch.
My assessment – you have 5 ULA and 1 left-wing (Pringle) who i would like to see joining the ULA and then 3 (O’Sullivan, Halligan and Murphy) who could be described as ‘left-of-centre’. I would not regard Wallace, Ming and, most definitely, McGrath as any more ‘left-of-centre’ than any one fo the LP crew.
Given that we all knew you only asked WBS the question so you could denounce his answer, what it not just have been easier to list the TDs you consider left of centre from the outset and have saved him the bother of responding?
Not really much denunciation there, Garibaldy. And it’s generally considered better form to find out what someone’s views are by asking them rather than assuming you know what they think for them, so perhaps JRG was being polite.
Jim:
I don’t really think that the ULA needs to be recruiting public figures unless they actually agree with the basic underpinnings of the ULA project. And certainly not simply on the basis that 8 TDs would be better than 5. I genuinely don’t know enough about the views of the left of Labour independents, so I’m not writing them off entirely, but most of them haven’t exactly been radical firebrands in their time in the Dail so far.
I ought to have used the word reject, but clearly the point of the question was to give JRG the opportunity to outline his own view of which TDs are left of centre. He simply could have done so.
He simply could have done so.
Sure, but if you don’t think there’s twelve of them it’s surely reasonable to ask who is being thought of. Saves time in the long run. Well, apart from ours arguing about it obviously.
Tend to agree. Though I think ULA could handle 3 slightly weaker members. 8 would be a good size. And another good thing would be a relative weakening of the dynamic duo.
I will leave if McGrath joins or is allowed join.
I would tyhen see a challenge to Sinn Fein to join an anti coalition front. No to FF, Fg, Labour et al.
“First up actually I did mention SF in the OP.”
Hang on a minute WBS – this is what you said and it was the point I was addressing -
“If one puts together the numbers of ULA and left Independent TDs one will see there are about six, perhaps seven if we include Ming Flanagan, left of centre, and five ULA.
That’s 12 TDs. About the numbers that the LP had during much of the 1970s and 1980s”
As for me trying to set WBS up to have a go – I was genuinely interested. People on here coming from different political perspectives will havea different view as to who would be considered ‘left-of-centre’.
Certainly it would be great if the ULA had a bigger parliamentary representation – however it is not as simple as that. Pringle was approached by the ULA about joining before the last election and he decided against it. Personally I wouldn’t invite any of the others as I would not regard them as left-wing representatives. The objective of the ULA is not to create a LP of the 1970s or 1980s type of party – or any knid of left-of-centre party. The objective of those involved in the ULA is to build a mass fighting, combative, campaigning socialist party committed to the implementation of left-wing policies.
Hold on a sec… I wrote originally…
“That’s 12 TDs. About the numbers that the LP had during much of the 1970s and 1980s. Throw in the 14 SF TDs, and accepting there are caveats about how left wing all of them would be – albeit most would seem familiar to most traditional social democrats from the 20th century (conservative social values of some and all) and we see not merely a space to the left of the LP but an expanse.”
There’s nothing disingenuous about me mentioning SF given the organic linkage in the above paragraph between the left indos and left SFers.
More importantly you’re somewhat missing the fundamental point I’m making in the post. Whatever about the individual orientation of Indo (or SF) TDs it does point to a left of labour and right of the ULA area that could loosely be termed traditional social democratic with a fairly significant albeit minority tranche Of support in the Irish electorate.
It matters not an iota if those TDs don’t measure up to your standards (or mine and frankly as a left social democrat/libertarianMarxist they leave a lot to be desired on various metrics for me too whatever the ndividual qualities shown on various issues). The point is they run generally as leftists or left leaning, thy are distinct from larger formations, they vote leftwards and consistently and they represent and are elected by a small but not nsignificant cohort of the electorate. Sure, that vote is somewhat diffused but to argue that they aren’t of the left in some form or fashion is to narrow th definition of left so drastically as to render it essentially without analytical utility ( and to dismiss the votes and activity of many leftists).
Well there was not mention of SF in the OP – and while there might be a case for arguing on an indivudal basis, they are all members of a party that is not ‘left of centre’.
As for your list of 12
Wallace – aside from opposing the war on Iraq, supporting the campaign against the Household tax and supporting the Dail motion on abortion rights there really is nothing to give him ‘left’ credentials
O’Sullivan has been wishy-washy at best – she has been lacklustre in the Dail and been involved in little of consequence outside of it. She is still living off Gregory’s reputation more than anything else.
McGrath – the man who backed FF/GP for a few crumbs from the table and then tried to portray himself as king-maker for the Presidential election. the guy is a chancer of the highest order.
Pringle – yes
Halligan – as you well know he left the WP to vote for water charges in Waterford
Murphy – left the WP for DL and then into the LP which she left probably because she perceived a difficulty getting elected in the same constituency as Stagg as a LP candidate – indeed Stagg, not wanting competition, would probably have stopped her standing.
Ming – even yourself regard it as a stretch.
My assessment – you have 5 ULA and 1 left-wing (Pringle) who i would like to see joining the ULA and then 3 (O’Sullivan, Halligan and Murphy) who could be described as ‘left-of-centre’. I would not regard Wallace, Ming and, most definitely, McGrath as any more ‘left-of-centre’ than any one fo the LP crew.
First up actually I did mention SF in the OP.
Secondly, for all the above, and noting that in the OP I was very very careful to frame the TDs in the context of various caveats, they are self evidently left of the LP as even a cursory examination of their voting record indicates.
Thirdly and following on from the second point Ming as an example is one TD who has worked long and hard on the CAHWT and all the named TDs are against those taxes. Not all had been involved in the CAWHT, but all have been against the taxes and said so publicly.
Finally I don’t really care about the motivations for TDs leaving parties etc, seems to me to slip a bit close to unprovable sort of discourse mainstream political commentary likes. Taking Murphy or as examples they’ve stood before the electorate repeatedly and they’ve broadly speaking taken progressive positions (Halligans record in the Dail is good, even taking into account his approach to issues previously).
Of course none of them are perfect, but I noted that from the off.
On the Jolly v WbS spat.Naturally put off by socialists who always want to decide if somebody is left or not …because of some ideological purity.Instead of trying to meet people where they’re at they need to categorise them,this is a great way of making alliances and building for the future.What it boils down to is doing politics with ideology,the trick is to do politics with people
While I hope it’s not a spat I do take your point fergal re categorisation, though my OP probably was equally responsible in its own way.
Completely off topic I’m not a million miles away from the Olympics an watching the opening ceremony and it’s effing weird to put it mildly. I’ve also a sinking feeling given its only on the ‘b’s'…
Doesn’t it really come down to not so much “Who’s left of Labour?” but “Who’s left of Labour that you’d trust?” For me, that skips the definition quandary and gets to the nub of the matter.
For one-man bands that are outside any kind of party / alliance / structure, youre always gonna wonder whether they’re strong enough to stand up against whatever winds blow e.g in the red corner, Declan Bree, in the blue corner, Finian McGrath.
Definitely agree with and there’s a heap of reasons why leftists have to pick and choose carefully.
TOR, Regarding Rafters comments, DL did not inherit the WP debt, they walked away and left the WP with the debt. That was one of the reasons why the TD’s left the Party.
That’s a very important point.
WordPress is a pain the way the comments can end up all out of sync.
Amen