Fourthwrite .......................Issue No. 9

Physical force

 by Tommy McKearney

Almost everybody in Ireland has an opinion about the use of politically motivated physical force yet not all appear to have a well-reasoned theory about its use or rejection. Incredibly too, it appears that those with the strongest views are often those most prone to rhetoric and least likely to present an unanswerable case. Indeed, there is even, sometimes, a degree of confusion over what constitutes force and what does not.

The dichotomy is of long pedigree in modern Ireland. It dates at least from the time of Daniel O’Connell and his differences with the Young Ireland movement and can be traced in one form or another through Irish politics to the present. In spite of James Connolly’s funny and simultaneously despairing remark about Ireland being the only country in the world to have a ‘physical force party’, we are not alone in this respect. Many other countries in Eastern Europe, South America, Africa and the Far East for example have had a similar experience.

In essence, the argument has hinged around an ongoing conundrum as to the best means of effecting democratic political and social change. In many countries, and not just Ireland, democratic change or progress has been resisted by powerful elites prepared to use whatever means they found convenient. This in turn has led to people in many and different areas to conclude – rightly or wrongly - that only through use of force could they bring about change.

One of the factors that most often tends to distort and confuse the argument is that opponents of change very often dress themselves in the respectable cloak of pacifism and oppose the use of force, purely in order to give themselves a moralistic basis on which to resist political progress. People for example, who had no compunction whatsoever about launching a destructive war in the South Atlantic on the Argentineans, frequently deemed Irish insurgents to be ‘murderers and terrorists’. Moreover, many of those who most loudly condemned IRA killings in the most recent round of the ‘Irish Troubles’ were quick to either understand or even endorse the killing of IRA personnel by the British Army. 

Nor is this inconsistency confined to right wing British Tories.  After all, anyone who offers support to the state’s army and police is by definition supporting the use, albeit under clearly defined circumstances, of physical force.  And even though this support may not be given for bloodthirsty reasons, there is a clear approval of the state’s right to use coercive and/or lethal violence. The debate of course then becomes not one of whether people agree or not with the use of force, but rather on the legitimacy and methods for its proper and correct use. 

As a consequence of ambiguities and outright disingenuousness, it is hardly surprising that some republicans fail to distinguish between arguments making a critique of blind militarism and others making a blinkered criticism of republicanism. This is regrettable since it often prevents a vital and thoroughgoing examination and analysis of Irish republicanism’s philosophy, strategy and tactics. Far too often, it encourages the philosophy to be identified with violent nationalism rather than with progressive democracy. 

Unfortunately however, the crude caricature of the physical force republican does have a basis in reality. There has long been a substantial body within Irish republicanism that believes loyalty to the cause and philosophy is determined solely by ones support for armed struggle. This limited, one-dimensional outlook inevitably causes its adherents to vest absolute authority – moral and organisational - in a secret and unaccountable, armed wing. The frequently repeated downside for these physical force men is that their unaccountable armed wing invariably decides to settle for much less than the maximum programme. And due to its privileged position, it almost always makes off with a majority of the membership.

At the heart of their problem is a lack of faith or even understanding in the power of the common people. Coupled with this failure to recognise the people goes the corollary – arrogance. A misguided arrogance that believes that it is possible for a tiny minority of heroes to create, by an act of will or courage, that what the broad majority of people do not care to support. It is a moot point if such people are entitled to use the term republican. What is certain is that they are disingenuous in calling themselves democrats.   

Therein, lies the quintessential weakness of the dogmatic physical force school - an absolute inability to understand the essential connection between democracy and republicanism. By ignoring the central role of the people in every political struggle, they pay insufficient heed to the need to win popular approval. Thereafter, they find themselves so isolated numerically that the forces of the state easily contain them. It is very much as G. B. Shaw said; “…a game at which the police can beat you.”

Compounding their mistaken analysis is the fact that through a misguided insistence on pursuing a losing strategy, they actually make their own cause more difficult to achieve. At a time when every available activist is needed to win new supporters and rebuild confidence among the rest, the ‘armed men’ are hiding themselves away from view in order to preserve ‘security’. When they do re-emerge from the shadows, too often it’s to make a blunder that only further isolates them and damages the prestige of republicanism.

Napoleon Bonaparte, a man who knew a thing or two about war, once said that you can do many things with a bayonet but you can’t sit on one. It’s a lesson that some Irish republicans could learn to their advantage.  

It would be a mistake nevertheless to leave this subject without examining both sides of the coin. The support for physical force, that has existed in Ireland for so long, cannot easily be dismissed as the lunacy of a few fanatics. This phenomenon has its origins in real grievance and moreover, owes its duration not just to injustice but also to real need in many instances. It is unnecessary to examine every period in history to make a judgement on this issue. We need only look to the events of the past thirty years to understand that the peaceful option is not always possible. On occasions, it was not even a matter of choice.

The fact is that the non-unionist people of the North asked for basic democratic and civil rights in the late 1960’s. The Stormont regime and its supporters quite simply attacked them in a calculated attempt to end the campaign for democracy by the use of intimidation and terror. Subjected to such an assault, ordinary people were faced with two immediate dilemmas – how to protect their families and homes and how to protect their struggle for justice. Those that had provided the leadership through the initial period of the campaign proved for the most part, helpless in the face of organised state violence.  That the only credible voice offering an answer proved to be the Provisional IRA was not so much a question of ‘Provos hijacking the mass movement’ as others being unable to meet its demands.  And those who make textbook criticisms of the ‘Republican Army’’ at that time must offer viable (not textbook) alternatives to a better course of action.

It is not possible to adopt an absolutist, never-never or always-always, position on the use of force and those who do so are either dishonest or deluded. People are clearly entitled to defend themselves if the state fails to do so and they should indeed be encouraged to openly discuss the best means of self-defence under such circumstances.  People are also entitled to protect their struggle for democratic rights and justice if the state fails or refuses to protect them while campaigning. More, an accepted democratic majority is unquestionably entitled to enforce its mandate.

However, such inalienable rights do not confer any justification or authority or even rationale on any person to embark on an arbitrary, armed crusade no matter how worthy the objective. Those who do so are not only wrong but also worse – they are being foolish. It is well past time for Irish republicans to set aside all fetishes about the use of force and stop making it t he litmus test of people’s loyalty.

The clamour for action

Tommy McKearney

The clamour for action is a well known, often repeated phenomenon in Irish republican circles and it follows a fairly well recognised type of argument. It usually runs along the line that; times are  difficult and support for an armed      campaign is either very scarce or bordering on the non-existent. In order to remedy the deficit it is then proposed that a series of high profile, publicity grabbing military operations will restore the fortunes of the cause in general and the ‘Movement’ in particular. The flawed rationale for this theory is that a significant number of people is  ready and anxious to join an armed uprising providing it can be demonstrated that a competent and dedicated group of militants exists and is capable of providing leadership and supplying arms.

That an overwhelming majority of the population is unwilling to engage in a military campaign (or indeed hostile to the concept) is brushed aside with inaccurate references to the minority involvement  in the Easter Rising of 1916. 

Fixated with the need to carry out military operations at any cost, the militarists attempt to substitute personal courage and dedication for adequate manpower and supplies. Worse, in their desperation for  action, they are forced to recruit whatever personnel is available and this invariably leads to the enrollment of incompetents and police agents. Moreover, no amount of better recruiting practices will overcome this problem - if the numbers are not there to choose from, the consequences are always the same.

The outcome of this is quite predictable - people and equipment are captured, operations are bungled or sabotaged and the desired ‘support-enhancing-publicity’   becomes instead,  a tool to further isolate the men of action.  Good sense would dictate a different course of action at this stage. Unfortunately good sense is not always present and difficulties are often compounded by those insisting that one more operation will reverse  the calamitous setbacks  incurred, and, like a punch-drunk boxer, the beaten are sent out for another damaging often fatal round of punishment.

The concept of a tiny handful of ‘heroes’ inspiring the inert masses has long ago been discredited.  In its place is  the proposition that identifying the real needs of the population and highlighting the ways and means to meet these needs is the way to effect change in any society. Where courage and dedication come into play is not in rushing to arms but in refusing to be bought off by the lure of the Establishment along the way.