Skip to content

Thursday, Sep 2nd 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

  • Newspaper Circulation Figures

    CIRCULATION FIGURES:
    Jan - June 2010

    Irish Independent 144896
    Irish Examiner 46687
    The Irish Times 105742
    Irish Daily Star 93729
    Irish Daily Mirror 60460
    The Irish Sun 86064
    Irish Daily Mail 51338
    Weekend Herald 40933

    No comments »
  • EAPN Ireland | Workfare Won’t Work for the Unemployed

    Excellent blog post from Aiden Lloyd, on EAPN’s On the Line blog. This pretty much nails the governments ‘thinking’ behind the workfare scheme. It wants to be seen to be doing something, while doing absolutely nothing. The economic structure of the country is based on attracting foreign capital, aka laundering profits, which only really benefits a small minority. Everything else is supposed to ‘trickle down’ from this. They’re not interested in restructuring the economy to boost indiginous growth.

    Minister O’Cuiv aims to use these schemes to provide unemployed people with short-term work activity, to up-skill them and ‘get them back into the mainstream workforce as speedily as possible’. He further contends that ‘maintaining people’s employability through regular work activity will be important for getting people back into the competitive economy’. This stance is revealing and is indicative of government thinking in terms of job creation for unemployed people. It would appear that the decision has already been made that any recovery will be dependent on a general improvement in the global economy and that the immediate priority is to manage matters until this recovery comes about.

    No comments »
  • Hugh Green | Anglo Grinder

    Hugh Green, on foot of the largest profit loss in Irish history - the 8.2 bn lost by Anglo Irish Bank in six months - has started to look at the figures and its eye watering.

    Grants to Enterprise was ticking over nicely all the way through the boom, making up 5-7% of capital expenditure. Then bam! 2009 we’re up to nearly 25% of capital expenditure. Only problem is that in 2009, it’s mostly down to Anglo Irish Bank.

    And

    But seeing as we’re heading into the propaganda season leading up to the budget, talking about the ‘savings’ that will have to be made, what with the ‘fiscal austerity’ being demanded by the ‘markets’, in the form of cuts to welfare, education and health, consider austerity in relation to spending on Anglo Irish Bank.

    See chart for details.

    No comments »
  • Slavefare: government proposal is a sham

    This comment from an anonymous punter on progressive economy sums up many of my thoughts on the matter
    "The thing that annoys me most about this is that it's not a real proposal. The Department can't provide any detailed proposals because there aren't any!

    The Minister appears to have thrown a (bad) idea out there to convey the impression that something's being done to tackle our unemployment problem when the reality couldn't be further from the truth.
    He's accused unemployed people of widespread fraud, without offering them any hope of getting a real job.

    We've seen the biggest recorded job losses in the history of the state, and Minister O'Cuiv thinks the numbers are high because people are refusing jobs, or working and claiming - what jobs does he think are out there? Employers are complaining because they're inundated with applications for any job advertised, not because no-one's applying!

    No comments »
  • Social Europe Needs a New Economic Model | John Palmer at Social Europe Journal

    There is however, a deep issue at stake if defence of decent European social standards is to be placed at the heart of policy making and not to become an increasingly powerless lobby at the margins of the debate. For that to happen the European Union must surely break with an almost exclusive emphasis on GDP as the be all and end all of economic policy objectives. The time has come to replace GDP with a far wider, more socially and environmentally responsible measure of economic progress.

    No comments »
  • Michael Burke’s common on Michael Taft’s post on progressive-economy@tasc re Service exports

    In the late boom year of 2005 the Gross Value Added (GVA) of the building and construction sector was €12.9bn and industry ex bulding was €33.6bn (2009 National incomes and Accounts, Table 4). By contrast the GVA of 'Other services', which includes financial services was €67.6bn.

    If we turn to the separate Input-Output tables, the 3 categories of financial services (finance, insurance and related) comprised €32bn.

    These are very large numbers and they are based on a fiction.

    The CSO link provided by Michael Taft shows Ireland has a trade deficit in services with the US of some €17.4bn, whereas services trade with the Europe and the rest of the world is in surplus.

    1 comment »
  • New Left Project | NLP Blog

    Good post on the BBC's official response to criticism of their Panorama documentary on the Gaza flotilla
    The BBC has, predictably, “dismiss[ed]” claims that a recent Panorama documentary on the Gaza flotilla was biased towards Israel. But its response itself illustrates the crux of the problem:

    “Israel has been accused of breaking international law by seizing a Turkish ship. Israel says they were terrorists. Turkey insists they were innocent victims.”

    That same opposition was proposed throughout the documentary on the flotilla: were the activists terrorists, or were they innocent peace activists?

    No comments »
  • Companies Dodge $60 Billion in Taxes Even Tea Party Condemns - BusinessWeek

    The Double Irish’

    On advice from Ernst & Young, Forest Laboratories Ireland reorganized that year, dropping the country from its name. The newly dubbed Forest Laboratories Holdings Ltd. established a registered office in Hamilton, Bermuda, declaring the island its tax residence. This unit took control of licensing the patents.

    A second subsidiary in Ireland inherited the old name. It handled the manufacturing, sublicensing the rights to the patents, according to a corporate disclosure and an internal Forest flow chart tracing the arrangement that was reviewed by Bloomberg.

    The change helped the Irish subsidiary cut its effective tax rate to 2.4 percent from 10.3 percent the year before the reorganization, according to its annual reports. It did so by deducting from its taxable income the fees that went to Bermuda, which has no corporate income tax. Charlie Perkins, a spokesman for Ernst & Young, one of the so-called Big Four, declined to comment on its work for Forest.

    No comments »
  • Ireland: A recession of the banks, by the banks, and for the banks | afoe | A Fistful of Euros | European Opinion

    And yet it’s not clear that the worst is over. The banks haven’t yet made a big move on distressed home mortgages and no one is clear what will happen when forebearance is no longer a viable strategy. Notwithstanding the government’s attempts to compare tax revenue to “profile” (i.e. a very recent projection), the fact is that tax revenue is stagnant at last year’s depression-like levels despite an apparent recovery in economic statistics. And while there are those desperate hotels, the tourists will still find fussy and expensive restaurants (plus VAT).

    Are there any tricks left in the bag? The government is looking at privatization, most likely as a way to realize a large amount of cash at fairly short notice — essentially a portfolio switch of state-owned companies for all the bank liabilities it has taken on. And there are some bizarre Thatcherite echoes in the possible appearance of a poll tax by the end of the year (dressed up as a “flat rate” water charge or property tax)

    No comments »
  • How Much Did Eurozone States Spend On Bailing Out Private Banks? | Irish Public Policy

    As a percentage of GDP the Euro-area average is 25.4%, the EU 27 is 31.2%. This is about 1,870 billion for the entire Eurozone. Nothing compared to what has been allocated to the Greek government. But, get this, Ireland spent a whopping 231.8% of its GDP, massively above any other country. Most of this is accounted for by the blanket guarantee of bank liabilities.

    No comments »

Link Archives »