by Kevin Bean

The scale of the defeat that the leadership of the Republican movement has inflicted on Republicanism has raised serious, fundamental issues not only about the future shape and trajectory of the movement as a political organisation, but whether Republicanism as a political ideology has a viable future at all. In allegedly adapting to the changing political and social circumstances of the 1990s, does this mean that there really is no alternative to the politics of retreat?

What this article attempts to do is to consider some themes and elements that could contribute towards an alternative politics and strategic approach. The first precondition for any such discussion is to recognise the nature and scale of the defeat that has been inflicted on Republicanism.To date the debate, in the broad sense, has taken a predictable turn. Many critics have taken the alleged personal betrayal by the Provisional leadership and its departure from the theological verities of’ traditional’ Republicanism as their starting point.

Other more useful approaches have placed Sinn Fein’s ‘seismic shift’ within a structural context by stressing the role of British state strategies and wider socio-economic change in shaping the trajectory of the movement. Some radical critics see the transformation of Republicanism from a revolutionary social movement to a party of government as an Irish manifestation of the process whereby the triumphant New World Order integrates and emasculates radical challengers to the status quo. Does ‘the End of History ‘ mean not only the demise of militant Republicanism as a political force but as an ideology as well?

These latter criticisms of the ‘petit-bourgeois’ nature of Republicanism provide a useful point of departure for an attempt to define an alternative strategy. The themes of that discussion could usefully focus on the relationship between Republicanism and Nationalism, the relevance of national–democratic demands for re-unification and independence, the social-radical implications of Republican ideology, the definition of ‘the Republic’ and, finally, the nature of the mass participatory politics that are required to re-build a revolutionary Republicanism.

The development of the Pan Nationalist Front strategy by the movement’s leadership has tended to blur the distinction between Republicanism and Nationalism as ideologies. An alternative strategy needs to re-define those boundaries and rescue Republicanism from being seen simply as the left face of a constitutional nationalist political project that makes an accommodation with the political and societal status-quo.

The origins of Republicanism in the radical-democratic political philosophy of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution provide us with a clear starting point. With its democratic conception of the People as the source of legitimate political authority and the accountability of all authority to the People, this philosophy emphasised citizenship and collective political freedoms as the basis for political structures; the Romantic Nationalist stress on territorial and cultural definitions of the Nation has often been historically at odds with the Republican democratic slogans of equality, fraternity and liberty.

Republican demands for self –determination, re-unification and national independence are essentially democratic and should remain at the heart of the Republican project. The origins of Provisional Republicanism point up the significance of this democratic strand in Republicanism. Provisionalism developed as a mass force from within an insurrectionary social movement of the nationalist working class and rural poor that was itself a product of the Unionist and British response to the demand for Civil Rights. National re-unification was placed on the agenda because the Stormont regime was based on the structural exclusion of the nationalist population; the ending of partition was the only way that the democratic rights of the northern minority could be exercised and the systemic exclusion be overcome

This democratic opposition to discrimination and the Unionist veto[disguised as consent] continues to lie at the heart of Republican objections to the Belfast Agreement; the Agreement attempts to ameliorate that exclusion,but the consent principle presupposes the continued domination of Unionism and the denial of democratic rights to the nationalist population. Far from being transitional to the achievement of an all-Ireland democracy, it strengthens partition and the continued existence of communal and sectarian political blocs that reproduce the status quo. A Republican critique of the Belfast Agreement and the ‘transitional ‘approach should rest on a contemporary reading of the living radical –democratic principles of self-determination not by an appeal to an ahistorical apostolic succession from the Second Dail.

Social radicalism has been a significant dynamic of Republicanism since 1798;as a political force it can be defined historically as a social movement of the excluded and alienated petit-bourgeoisie and urban and rural poor. In this context, the form of Republican politics is a vehicle whose shape and definition are provided by the social interests of and tensions between the classes that comprise its leadership and base. The growth and evolution of Provisionalism since 1970 as a mass movement bears out this analysis.

Given the continued structural and social exclusion and alienation of the nationalist working class and rural poor in the north Republicanism will continue to function as a lightening conductor of both social and national- democratic discontent. Likewise, the growing economic inequalities and social exclusion of sections of both the urban and rural populations in the south will be expressed by growing popular challenges to the precarious success and inherently unstable hegemony of the Celtic Tiger.

Social radicalism and collective challenges are not merely ways of mobilising a coalition of these alienated and discontented groups; neither are they simply part of some Republican’ historical mission’ whose function is to provide a marginalised repository for the rage of the excluded. Social radicalism is at the heart of the democratic and egalitarian project of both historical and contemporary Republicanism.

The Republic is not solely about breaking the connection with England; from the eighteenth century, this was seen merely as a necessary precondition for creating a new politically and socially equal society. It was historically a means to an end, not the end itself. The tensions generated by the development of the Celtic Tiger and the continuous de-industrialisation of the north pose clear challenges to the dominant consensus of free market economics and the whole island’s subjugation by the multi-nationals.

Demands for work for all, a guaranteed national minimum income, expansion of public services in health, education and housing and the democratic, collective organisation of the island’s economic resources to meet social need rather than individual and multi-national profit could form the basis of a politics that focuses this challenge towards transforming Irish society.

Rather than adapting politically to this consensus and worshipping in the corporate boardrooms of the New World Order Republicanism needs to develop a collective critique of this system and its ideology as the initial step to building and mobilising a social movement that is capable of transforming Irish society.

The majority of Republicans, including many who support the current Provisional leadership, would support the themes outlined above. The philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point, however, is how to change it. Many supporters of the Provisional leadership’s line argue that given the changed political circumstances of the early 21st century pragmatic adaptation rather than transformation is the realistic alternative; in an ideological shift reminiscent of social democratic and neo-nationalist politics in Europe, New Sinn Fein argues that there is no alternative. In a variant of this argument others confide, when pressed by critics, that this apparent adaptation is really a subtle strategy of hollowing out the system from within and that what appears to be props to shore up the status –quo are actually transitional stages that [imperceptibly] move towards its subversion and eventual transformation.

The discussion about this transitional and adaptive style of politics lies at the centre of the development of a Republican alternative. While it is correct to understand the qualitatively different structural context that now shapes our political activity and to recognise that we live in new times, these factors demand all the more that we do not simply worship the accomplished fact as an unalterable given and a law of nature.

An outline of the alternative Republican politics that we need can only be arrived at by an understanding of both the historical and ideological development of Republicanism as an organised force and of aspects of its contemporary political praxis. Sinn Fein has become an institutionalised political party whose leadership practice a type of brokerage politics, mediating between the state and sections of the nationalist community; this brokerage is extended to forms of diplomatic manoeuvre involving a variety of players from Washington to Dublin.

The reason why Sinn Fein is able to play this game is the position of strength it has derived not only from the IRA’s armed campaign, but more importantly from the inherited social capital of the mass movement s of the 1970s and its expression in the Hunger Strike mobilisation and initial electoral campaign of the 1980s.This period is both central to our understanding of the trajectory of the Provisionals and for the development of a Republicanism based on a mass revolutionary movement created from participatory, democratic politics.

This presupposes the democratisation of Republicanism and the creation of a political praxis that privileges intellectual and political creativity and replaces the militarist, conspiratorial ethos and organisational discipline that is necessary for a military group during a war with the open debate and discussion of a movement that seeks participation and creative mass politics not merely passive votes at election time and walk–on parts at demonstrations and white-line pickets.

Such a political movement would need to break down the distinctions between ‘leadership’ and ‘base’ and replace these formal and institutionalised structures with open forms and genuine accountability. This is not some utopian counsel for perfection, but a practical necessity if a real, living movement is to be created. Intellectual activity, debate about perspectives and strategy are not simply valuable in their own right, but are the fundanmenrtal precursors to effective political action and a radical transformative praxis.

The historical experience of Civil Rights, the initial phases of the growth of the Provisionals and the Hunger Strike period provide valuable lessons for the creation of these new politics and shows the potential that could exist. This potential cannot be simply realised by an act of will by political activists or detonated by the agency of even the most determined and dedicated volunteers.The changes in the political and social structural context, the actions of dominant players in Washington and London, and the varying currents in the political psychology and political culture of the subordinate social groups will shape the nature of the events that will unfold and the possibilities of realising the potential for the development of a revolutionary Republicanism

Fourthwrite has previously attempted to define a position between Stormont and Omagh.These must remain the parameters of an alternative Republicanism, but in discussing, the everyday political implications of our theory we must not let ourselves be limited by these boundaries. The limitations of the current debate and the polarised possibilities on offer can be seen in two fundamental related issues-the possible continuing utility of armed struggle and the democratic implications of the vote to accept the Belfast Agreement in the referenda on both sides of the border.

The historical experience of revolutionary movements throughout the world as well as in Ireland demonstrates the effectiveness of force as a factor of political pressure and mass mobilisation. However, does the strategic imperative for armed struggle still obtain in relation to the British state’s role in Ireland? Is there a conceivable future role for force in terms of the legitimate democratic violence of the oppressed or as an adjunct to a popular revolutionary mobilisation? Likewise, if we are committed to recreating a mass revolutionary Republicanism can we simply ignore the referenda results as either false consciousness or the product of elite manipulation? Does our ‘revolutionary mandate’overide that of the People in whose name we claim to speak?

These questions and the themes raised above do not admit of easy, quick answers, but how we approach, discuss and resolve them will tell us a great deal about the nature of the political project we are undertaking and the Republicanism we are re-articulating. Above all they should inform our political praxis and help us to understand’what is to done’.

These re-articulations are not unique either to Irish Republicanism or to the early part of the twenty first century; we have been here before with the Fenians’ New Departure and Davitt’s Land League, the Republican Congress in the 1930s and the re-discovery of Socialist Republicanism in the 1970s.The ‘End of History’ in the1990s provoked similar reappraisals of ideology and strategy in revolutionary movements throughout the world from South Africa to Palestine.Indeed the revision of Republicanism by the Provisional leadership in the1990s can be seen as their response to these changing times and the type of questions posed by the apparent triumph of the New World Order and its local dispensation in Ireland..

The stalemate surrounding the implementation of the Belfast Agreement, the stasis that the Agreement introduces into politics and the failure of the process to function in a transitional manner makes a thorough going debate within the Republican movement all the more urgent. From the point of view of revolutionary Republicanism these questions were in reality left unanswered by the Provisionals and still remain open. It is our duty to answer them, both in theory and in practice; in that way we will not only resolve what is to be done, but begin the ideological re-commissioning of Republicanism and the re-building of a new, genuinely revolutionary politics in Ireland.