To say that republican Ireland has always sought to break the connection with Britain and has often resorted to force in order to do so is a statement of fact and not of principle. Factual observation however can never take the place of political theory or critical reflection. The person who only seeks to break the union with Britain is simply a nationalist. The person who attempts this solitary objective by force is at best an armed nationalist.

Nationalism unlike republicanism is generally more concerned with symbols than with substance. It is moreover, an exclusive rather than an inclusive ideology. Irish republicanism, if it is not to be swallowed up by nationalism, must root itself in a radically progressive theory and system of government. Democratic republicanism states that the people alone must be able and free to determine how their state shall be defined and governed. In order to do so in Ireland it has long been necessary to break free from the influence of Britain. That is the republican logic for breaking the connection.

Let us be clear though, republicanism is not like a simple chemical formula where all components are forever constant. There is no "canon law of true republicanism". It must be a living, vibrant philosophy or it becomes a stagnant mantra. Previous generations of Irish republicans have outlined programmes that were contemporary to their era. Tone, Davis, Connolly were people of their time and acted accordingly. That they were correct in that epoch cannot mean that they have left us with all the answers to the present period.

The true test of an effective radical political philosophy is its ability to adjust to changing events without mutating into a contradictory parody of itself. Irish republicanism at its best has been radical, democratic and revolutionary. Irish republicanism must again face that challenge and answer the questions posed not by its enemies (or indeed by Sinn Fein) but by the demands of the present day.

For Irish republicans, the urgent task now is to reassert a political position in a context relevant to the 21st century and to search out and identify the tactics and strategies necessary to implement a freshly constructed platform.

Too many dictatorships have masqueraded as republics for us to make a simple equation between democracy and republicanism. Moreover, "democracy" has been invoked by too many unscrupulous agencies for it to be accepted without a rigorous definition of its content.

Where do we stand for instance on the issue of absolute and uncompromising democracy? Are we content to confine democracy to electoral participation or are we capable of expanding it and clearly defining it to include practical economic, social and intellectual democracy? Are we able to create a social order that provides for the poor, the young, the old and the weak? Are we able to produce a foreign policy that is genuinely ethical and not designed to lean on the whims of the regulators of modern global capitalism?

Are we capable of realising that we must make a positive step and commit our republicanism to a realistic course for achieving these objectives and not settle for making the same type of aspirational wish list that many other parties have but never intend to effect. Above all else, are we willing to accept that at all times the people are sovereign? If so, we’ll have for the new century, republicanism capable not just of creating a political platform to inspire and motivate another generation but to effect these objectives.