Skip to content

Saturday, Mar 13th 2010


Revising Republicanism

Eoin Ó Broin’s Sinn Féin and the Politics of Left Republicanism (Pluto Books) looked like a timely book when it came out a few weeks ago.  Events since have only emphasised the relevance of its argument.

The book opens with a trenchant defence of Sinn Féin against allegations that is an authoritarian, quasi-fascist movement. Ó Broin acknowledges that such perceptions are genuinely and widely held, but argues that they are a misunderstanding, attributable in part to the intense ideological conflict around the Troubles and to the fact that until recently Sinn Féin has often been a secondary theme of analysis focused on the IRA. However, he also suggests that republicanism itself has been an under-theorised movement, with its adherents privileging history over ideology and commemoration over critical analysis.

This has left unchallenged interpretations such as that of historian Fearghal McGarry, who sees republicanism as an ‘introspective tradition’ characterised by ‘abstention from participation in electoral politics, refusal to acknowledge the reality of Protestant support for the union and commitment to the use of physical force.’

Ó Broin argues that this conventional interpretation does not reflect the self-understanding of most republicans. “Indeed” he writes, “it would be hard to think of any of the leading republicans, particularly left republicans of the twentieth century, as fitting McGarry’s mould, whether one is talking of James Connolly, Peadar O’Donnell, Seán MacBride, Tomás MacGiolla or Gerry Adams.”

Ó Broin does acknowledge, albeit in a footnote, that ‘some doctrinaire republicans, such as Ruarí Ó Brádaigh’ fit this definition, nevertheless he argues that it does not capture the mainstream of republican thinking.

What is at stake in this debate has been dramatically highlighted in the aftermath of last week’s dissident republican attacks. A number of commentators, applying the conventional interpretation, have been prepared to entertain the idea that it is the dissidents who represent authentic republicanism.

A notable example was Eamonn McCann’s Daily Mail article, which argued that “armed Republicans have always taken their mandate not from the constituency in whose name the struggle has been waged but from history.” Ó Broin’s book certainly lends itself to interpretation as part of the ‘recent energetic revisionism’ which McCann identifies on this point.

McCann’s remark that “only a small minority of Republican supporters over the past 35 years ever swallowed this version of history whole,” could be read as an admission of Ó Broin’s thesis. At the same time, Ó Broin’s acknowledgement that “discipline and loyalty are often more highly valued than critical debate and internal democracy” within Sinn Féin, is arguably in line with McCann’s portrait of the way “Adams and his associates have gradually, surreptitiously, denying at every stage that they were embarked on any such enterprise, sloughed off republicanism.”

Ó Broin’s argument implies that they did not slough off republicanism as such but only one interpretation of it. Ironically, his analysis is arguably more the Marxian of the two. While McCann acknowledges the social forces that have shaped Sinn Féin’s practical politics, he nevertheless prioritises a particular set of formal positions in assessing its significance.

For Ó Broin such readings of republican history are essentialist. He calls for a materialist approach which emphasises changing political and economic contexts as much as continuities. One example is his reading of the early history of Sinn Féin, which argues that it “was never more than a platform for competing political interests.”

This is significant, perhaps, because in seeking precedents for the kind of radical, politically-engaged republicanism he advocates, Ó Broin looks well beyond the institutional history of his own party.

He looks to early republicans, noting that the United Irishmen, Young Ireland and the IRB, all “adopted constitutional and parliamentary tactics at various stages”. He identifies Connolly’s Irish Socialist Republican Party as the source of a distinctive left-republican tradition, of which later manifestations include the Republican Congress, Clann na Poblachta, and Official Sinn Féin.

Ó Broin succeeds in showing that there is a broader republican tradition than the conventional interpretation allows, within which democracy, not continuity, is the key value.  However, the left-republican formations present their own problems, which Ó Broin analyses in each case. This includes the treatment of Official Sinn Féin which inspired much of the initial controversy around the book.

The parallel between Sinn Féin’s current trajectory and that of the Officials has often been made.  Some of Ó Broin’s key prescriptions, such as the need to focus on theoretical development, to prioritise socialism equally with nationalism, and to engage with unionists, clearly reflect similar strategic imperatives to those which the Officials faced. In that case, the endpoint was the centrist social democracy and crypto-unionism of Democratic Left. Many would argue that contemporary Sinn Féin is involved in a similar process of co-optation.

In Ó Broin’s account however, there is an implicit contrast in the development of the two parties. The Officials are presented as moving through a series of uncritically-adopted external models, from Leninism, to Eurocommunism, to mainstream social democracy. Sinn Féin on the other hand is seen to have emerged as the strongest left-republican formation to date, because of the “ability of the party to adapt to changing circumstances with flexibility and imagination” in the course of the peace process.

That is not to say that Ó Broin is uncritical of the party’s recent history.  His concluding chapter on the way forward, with its ‘eight theses on the future of Sinn Féin’ is clearly an extension of his role in the post-mortem on the party’s poor election performance in 2007.

Ó Broin calls for a new assessment of the global context created by the credit crisis, and for an ideology that prioritises social and economic change equally with constitutional and political change. He suggests that an exclusive emphasis on the latter “falsely holds out the hope of the advancement of the national agenda in the short term.” That assessment will raise the spectre of the Workers’ Party in some minds, and could yet be upset by the complex constitutional dynamic now unfolding in the UK.

Nevertheless, such caution is warranted, and as Ó Broin notes, a practical strategy for Irish unity will itself need to address the social and economic benefits more clearly than has hitherto been the case.

Last month’s Sinn Féin Ard Fheis provided signs that the party is evolving in the direction sketched by Ó Broin, most obviously in Gerry Adams’ call for an alliance of the left.

It would be a mistake to dismiss this shift as mere opportunism. Sinn Féin has clearly recognised the definitive nature of the failure of neoliberalism over the past year, in a way which is perhaps evidence of the strategic flexibility claimed for the party. There is every political incentive to build an alternative.

Ó Broin’s suggestion that such an alternative must look beyond “outdated Leninist dogmas or equally outdated Keynesian welfareism” leaves plenty of scope as to its positive shape. This, if anything, points to a broader weakness of the left internationally. There is as yet no left equivalent to the intellectual body of work which enabled the neoliberals to exploit the crisis of social democracy from the 1970s onwards.

If that is to change, it will require a great deal more of the kind of earnest and rigorous engagement on display in this book. It merits serious attention from anyone interested in the future of republicanism, and of the left, in Ireland.

Tom Griffin is a London Irish journalist and blogger. He also blogs on the Open Democracy platform Our Kingdom.

Discussion

We welcome and encourage lively discussion from the public about articles on Irish Left Review. You can leave a comment using the form at the bottom of the page. Please read through the existing comments before posting your own.

  1. Comment by: duth ealla

    Mar 19th 2009 at 20:03

    I am still reading it at the moment. Good book, well written, can be a bit academic but not overly so. Quite a rigorous approach.

    Whether you are for or against SF, pro or anti-republican or any other creed its a worthwhile read even for people who are politically opposed to the Republican project because it demonstrates why constant critical evaluation of your political project, its origins, beliefs and direction is the only way to progress.

    I could not help thinking that both FG and FF could usefully apply the same logic to their parties, as could Unionists and just about any party that has built up a type of institutional memory. Critical assessment is key.

    Can I also add in reference to a point I saw on the Irish times review bt Richard English that o’Broin acknowledges that Republicans misunderstood the role of the British state in the north. I’m only about 1/3 of the way in but so far my reading of that for him the British presence in this country over the last century were symptomatic of societal and political upheavals and changes in attitudes that were happening in Britian. In that sense the British presence resulted from a type of political battleground for interests in Britain more so than a point of view than that Ireland itself was integral to the union. I have not done his point justice but it is nicely built up by Eoin. this point is I think its very central to determining the future of the 6 counties.

    Not having reached the later chapters I am reluctant to comment on the strategy aspect. I wonder how much of a watershed, as some have claimed or sought to portray it, rather than an eloquent setting out of one view of republicanism or a strategy. That will be an interesting debate worth having.Actually I think it would be fair to say that the book would stress that it has to happen. I loook forward to seeing if it determines whether that debate is something thats being ongoing for a number of years, maybe even since 1980.

    Eoin o’Broin makes some very good points about the need to reevaluate ideas or notions of the past because often the assume their own persona independent of the actual events. Having your own narrative is not a bad thing but it must be constantly referenced to the past in an independent manner to ensure that it does not mislead. While he does not mention it, so far anyway, I wonder did he consider that such an approach should also be considered when looking at gender politics, internationalism and socialism itself.

    For me the language of socialism has become so debased by over 100 years of existence and variation that it is almost impossible to say you are socialist without inviting a whole load of pre-conceptions upon yourself. If SF is to reaffrim its left orientation then it must separately evaluate its socialist policies and notions in a similar manner because while the two elements of the national struggle may be complimentary, a la Connoly, they are both subject to long traditions based on notions of fealty to a certain path and dare i say doctrine.

    Hernando deSoto, the man who effectively defeated the shining path and lifted many Peruvians out of poverty, said (and I paraphrase) that people dont want to be socialists they want to be capitalists but they are not being left do so.

    Despite his use of such language what he achieved in Peru was the equivalent of a full scale socialist revolution. He just did not see the point in calling it that and becoming bogged down in a debate on semantics.

    Am I suggesting some type of policy dissimilitude, no, certainly not, only warning that as Republicans the language we use and how we describe our policies has the danger of forcing us to explain the terms away rather than the policies.

    Good book thats highly recommended for those interested in history, politics and Republicanism.

This article is also being discussed on the following websites:

  1. Mar 19th 2009

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required, will not be published)

Best of the Web

  • Hugh Green | Lost Boys And Girls

    Hugh Green’s excellent post on the Boys of St Columb’s documentary makes a couple of points that are worth highlighting. The now famous Northern Irish men featured - Hume, Heaney, Deane, McCann, Coulter etc, were the first generation to benefit from the 1947 British Act of Parliament which granted free secondary education to Northern Irish children. The trick of getting an education that was transformative, however, was that you had to pass the 11 plus.

    The documentary was focusing on those that had, of course, otherwise they wouldn’t have become pupils of St. Columb’s. But while there was an awareness of those who ‘had not succeeded’ among the participants,  the documentary itself ignored this majority.

    So here’s the first point worth highlighting:

    “Most of the children of the generation portrayed here, as with today’s generation, didn’t pass the 11 plus to go on to grammar school and university. These were the other Boys and Girls of St. Columb’s, who were as much a product of the education system as any of the men featured. They also took part in civil rights activism and resistance to official discrimination, but there was no account of them given here, other than in the men’s awareness that they had been picked out as the ’successes’.”

    Perhaps this documentary was not the one to examine the other side of the coin, not those who were cultivated to become leaders of the community, but rather those “deemed to be there simply to be administered to, represented and led”. But if it had, and this is the second point worth highlighting…

    “A good starting point would be in the fact that the 1947 Education Act may have led to the formation of the SDLP, but it also led to its disdainful characterisation as the ‘Schoolteachers, Doctors and Lawyers Party’. What’s more, the grouping that eventually took its place in Northern nationalist politics, having waged a decades long war against the Northern state, was led in Derry by Martin McGuinness, who had failed the 11 plus. Nearly his first act as minister for Education was to try and initiate its abolition.”

    No comments »
  • FT.com / Global insight - Franco-German dynamics make EMF a distant goal

    Of course, the idea floated at the weekend by Wolfgang Schäuble is a double-edged weapon. It would give that fund the same very tough tools of conditionality and intervention in the fiscal policies of individual countries as the International Monetary Fund. From the German perspective, that would be its primary purpose.
    But just as surprising is the fact that the initiative, with the promise of other unspecified measures to bolster economic policy co-ordination in the eurozone, should have come first from Berlin rather than Paris.

    Normally, the more dramatic flights of fancy in the European Union are a French prerogative. The German tradition is far more cautious. French fuites en avant are regarded with irritation. But only if Berlin signs up does anything usually happen.

    In the end, big European initiatives seldom come to pass at all unless the two largest founding states bury their differences and do a deal.

    No comments »
  • The Iceland Weather Report | On the Icelandic Prime Ministers Thoughts on the Referendum tomorrow

    Iceland is facing a referendum tomorrow on whether to accept the deal carved out between Iceland, The Netherlands and Britain on the Icesave debt, and its likely to vote no. But will it make any difference. "As if the government wasn’t in enough trouble with public opinion here at home, Prime Minister Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir has publicly announced that she plans to shun the referendum tomorrow.

    “To me it is pointless and I find it is very sad that the first referendum since the founding of the republic revolves around legislation that is already obsolete. Consequently I see no point in taking part in this referendum,” Jóhanna told Fréttablaðið.

    Granted, that opinion is shared by many people. However, in the view of a large proportion of the Icelandic nation, and even of the world*, this referendum is about so much more. Even if this is Jóhanna’s personal opinion, stating it so publicly seems like political harakiri."

    1 comment »
  • Key Trends in the World Economy | Germany’s ‘continental economy’ - comparisons to the US, India and China

    John Ross on how Germany's trade figures shows that their economy is 'continental', that is its similiar to the US, India and China as it relies solidly on its European market.
    "The fact that Germany is operating in a continental scale economy, Eurozone Europe, with a fixed exchange rate, allows it to gain or maintain tremendous economies of scale. Conversely introduction of unstable exchange rates,including the possibility for major European trading partners to carry out competitive devaluations, would almost certainly make it impossible for Germany to maintain such a high proportion of exports in its economy - that is it would greatly weaken the 'continental' scale of its economy." Meanwhile…Handelsblatt reports that German Chancellor Angela Merkel yesterday rejected a call from Spanish PM Jose Luis Zapatero for "EU-solidarity" for Greece. She also warned that the euro would not be stable without radical cuts in the budget deficits of member states.

    No comments »
  • Interview with Green Isle hunger strikers

    Interview with Green Isle hunger strikers from Frank Schnittger on Vimeo.

    No comments »
  • Eamon Devoy, General Secretary TEEU outlines background to hunger strike

    Eamon Devoy, General Secretary TEEU outlines background to hunger strike from Frank Schnittger on Vimeo.

    1 comment »
  • Juan Cole | Harvard Professor’s Modest Proposal: Starve the Gazans into Having Fewer Babies

    Cole dismantles Martin Kramer's astonishing claim that forcing the Palestinians to have fewer children by starving them would resolve the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
    "Martin Kramer revealed his true colors at the Herzliya Conference, wherein he blamed political violence in the Muslim world on population growth, called for that growth to be restrained, and praised the illegal and unconscionable Israeli blockade of civilian Gazans for its effect on reducing the number of Gazans.

    M. J. Rosenberg argued that Kramer's speech is equivalent to a call for genocide. It certainly is a call for eugenics."

    No comments »
  • Charity worker safe after mob’s adoption anger | Independent.ie

    Haitian's concerned about foreign nationals taking advantage of the catastrope in their country to take children - a justifiable concern - are described as an 'angry mob of Haitian men' when confronting an Irish female 'charity worker' (as opposed to an agent of a private adoption agency).
    "When we arrived at the airport we were surrounded by an angry mob of Haitian men," she told the Irish Independent. "They started getting very aggressive and were shouting at us. It was very scary, especially for the kids."

    No comments »
  • Shell Corrib Gas - Who are the real Thugs & Bullies? | Indymedia Ireland

    A number of high profile Shell to Sea campaigners including 'the Chief' Pat O'Donnell and Maura Harrington sought to appeal certain criminal convictions in cases heard last week at Castlebar Circuit Court from 9th - 11th February. A few of the appeals were successful but some of the convictions were upheld by the court.

    Also Facebook | Pat O'Donnell http://bit.ly/dyK5jh

    No comments »
  • Palestinian Avatar « Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

    Bilin Reenacts Avatar Film A.K.A The Palestinian Avatar!

    No comments »

Link Archives »