Sinn Fein moving leftward, the stakes for the national liberation movement THE SINN FEIN ard-feis (congress) this year took place against the backdrop of the so-called Anglo-Irish talks, which were touted by the Dublin government in particular as a means of achieving a settlement of the Northern Irish problem that would isolate the "men of violence." Two weeks after the ard-fheis, the two governments signed a formal accord. It created machinery for consultation between the British and Irish governments on Northern Irish affairs and on cooperation against the IRA. Obviously the British government has more interest in Dublin's cooperation in repression than it has in consulting the craven neocolonialist regime about what it does in Northern Ireland. After 15 years of war and suffering for the nationalist people of Northern Ireland, any illusions in the possibility of a "compromise" settlement could only open the way for more effective repressions and create serious political problems for the
IRELAND "police socialism."
The failure of the first attempt to turn the traditional militant national movement to the left still hung over this Sinn Fein ard-feis like a spectre. It continues to be an obstacle to leftward development in the republican movement, along with the wreckage of previous political strategies that were offered to Irish republicanism.
Traditionalists obviously find it easier to remember the opportunist betrayals of those who talked about the need for politics in the past than they do to try to understand why previous leaderships of the movement felt the need for a political and social strategy and why those who remained faithful to the ideas of the Irish republic failed to come up with one.
Now, another republican leadership forged in the struggle against British imperialism has launched on a great political endeavor, and there can be no doubt that its outcome will have a crucial effect on the prospects for national and social liberation in Ireland.
Whatever the conclusion of this undertaking, it has already proved it has already proved that in our time the leadership of the struggle against imperialist domination in Ireland will be drawn inexorably toward a revolutionry socialist and internationalist program. The traditional Sinn Fein right has found itself without any positive alternative, having to withdraw to defensive, waiting positions.
The anti-Communist and Catholic social views that were put forward in the initial stages of the rise of the Provisional republican movement, in an attempt to provide an alternative to internationalist or "extreme" socialism then identified with the "Officials" seem to be a fairly dim memory in Sinn Fein today. Right wing not clearly defined
In fact, the first thing that struck me about this ard-feis, which is the first I have attended since 1981, was the absence of a clearly defined and vocal right-wing bloc. Four years ago, there was still a very visible right wing threatening the new leadership with dreadful consequences if they "went too far."
In this ard-fheis, there was little or no opposition to the adoption of a whole range of positions characteristic of the international youth radicalization. There were some incidents that illustrated this in a particularly striking way. One speaker, for instance, dressed in punk style, won general applause when he announced he was a
9 resistance movement as a whole. GERRY FOLEY
DUBLIN - The November 1-2 ard-fheis (congress) of Sinn Fein was a watershed for the political organization of the revolutionary nationalist movement in Ireland. It confirmed the identification of Sinn Fein with a broad range of socialist positions on domestic and international questions, firmly declaring that the place of the Irish national liberation movement was alongside the other revolutionary national liberation movements of our time, in particular the fronts in Central America, the African National Congress, and the PLO.
This ard-fheis also confirmed the project of the new leadership around the Sinn Fein president, Gerry Adams, to give effective organization and a coherent political program. This project has clearly been underway for some time. It was described in fact quite clearly by Sinn Fein spokespeople at the time of the Northern local elections in May, which, along with the Southern local elections in June, were an important initial test.
While regular observers of the Sinn Fein ard-fheiseanna in recent years remarked that there were no new political advances this year, this ard-fheis seemed to represent a point of no retur for the leadership in its attempt to transform the movement into a coherent revolutionary political organization.
International Viewpoint 25 November 1985
The appointment of Danny Morri son, a central figure in the new leadership, as education officer points to an acceleration of this process. Adams indeed seemed to be announcing this by making a special point of Morrison's new assignment in his presidential address.
In evidence at this ard-fheis was a new layer of young activists and leaders, in particular from Dublin and other parts of the 26 Counties, who were representative of the radicalized younger generations.
The organization seems to have begun to recruit young radicalized people in a serious way in the formally independent part of the country, where the importance of national oppression is less obvious than in the North, and where radical nationalism has a corresponding much smaller, much more passive, and more seattered historic base.
The appearance of such a layer was also a result of the initial leftward move in the radical nationalist movement led in the late 1960s and early 1970s by the so-called Official wing of Irish republicanism. The latter group, however, lost its appeal for young revolutionists after 1974 when it moved rapidly to the right, ending up as a pro-imperialist ultrabureaucratic sect, something like what the Russian revolutionists called
homosexual and not ashamed of it, and his motion of defense of gay rights was passed with only a few opposing votes.
The clar (agenda) included a section on "women's affairs," whose first motion was to ratify a policy of positive discrimination to bring women forward in the movement. It was carried with only small opposition. Another motion that "all sexist terminology be deleted from all Sinn Fein literature, internal, external, or policy" was carried without any opposition whatever.
Hand in hand with the continuing move to the left, the Sinn Fein leadership showed an increased openness to working with other groups. Members of collaborative left organizations, such as People's Democracy, the Irish section of the Fourth International, were invited to observe the ard-fheis without restrictions. The political discussion was carried on almost entirely in the open, in contrast to the 1970s, when, as I remember sometimes only a few sessions were open. A good many independent radicals were also welcomed.
The leadership seemed to be making a new effort to assume their responsibilities as the leaders of the predominant organized opposition movement in the country. For example, they invited representatives of the participants in a long-running strike in the Dunnes' Stores chain against the handling of South African goods to address the conference and called for support for them. The radical leadership of the Union of Students of Ireland were also welcomed. Anglo-Irish accords - threat to the resistance movement
At one point in the diseussion also, Adams said that the aim of the London and Dublin governments in the Anglo-Irish talks was to find a way to defeat the whole resistance movement in Ireland, not just Sinn Fein. I do not recall hearing Provisional republican leaders put forward such a conception in the past.
On the other hand, it has been very common to hear arguments that the republicans are the movement and that anyone serious about opposing the system should join up without further delay. If the view expressed by Adams on this occasion is adopted systematically, it would represent an extremely important change for the republican movement and for the "whole resistance movement" also. It would put the republicans in a position to play the role of center of a broad radical movement, the role that they have won 10
RD FIS A previous year's ard-fheis (DR) by their historical credentials and their self-sacrificing struggles and which, at the moment at least, only they have the capacity to play. In line with such an attitude, one of the first motions on the clar was for the republican leadership to call an open national conference within six months "with a view to establish a broad-based campaign in defense of the rights of Irish political prisoners and to bring unity and cohesion to the many worthy campaigns presently being waged." A decisive turn by Sinn Fein toward building a broad movement on such issues would be a very positive development. After the end of the H-Block movement, unfortunately the movement tended to fall back on a more inward-looking approach. On the other hand, there were very few concrete motions on the clar. In general, most of those on policy put forward very general positions. A lot of them did not go beyond the commonplaces of the new left. There was little or no evidence of a systematic political approach or consistent criteria. One incident may serve to illustrate this. One of the main motions put forward on "foreign affairs" by the Ard Chomhairle (National Executive) said, " ... we condemn the regimes of South Africa, Namibia and Ethiopia. That we recognise the legitimate struggles of those attempting to overthrow these repressive regimes."
The position on the first two regimes and the opposition to them is uncontroversial on the left. The case of the third, however, is quite different, since it is a government that came out of an anti-imperialist revolution, claims to be left, and is supported to varying degrees by the Soviet Union and Cuba.
g
VI a a.
b d
E
SE d al
T
S
Dealing with the problem of the
Ethiopian Dergue and the movement's struggle against it, the most important of which is the Eritrean People's
Liberation Front, has been a problem for most left groups. It would be a interesting in particular to see how the Irish republicans deal with it, especially because of the way it raises the questions of national and democratic rights in the context of e.
fighting imperialism and that of the
A need for a critical examination of
=
Soviet and even Cuban policies.
However, the reference to Etha iopia was simply dropped before the motion came up. There was no a explanation either of why it was included, or why it was dropped.
SI
Moreover, there was no mention of
Poland under the foreign affairs item
SI despite the historic ties between
Polish and Irish revolutionists and the support of Solidarnose leaders for the republican hunger strikers.
a
It is true that the traditional agenda made up of resolutions from
SI d every sort of body in Sinn Fein,
1 from the cumainn, which correspond to cells, to the National Executive complicates political discussion. In tl
LI fact, notable progress was evident this time in organizing the discussion, n by comparison with the 1970s in particular. The tendency is, as the level
Ti of political discussion rises, for the e.
resolutions to be combined into a composite motions that more and e.
t more resemble the political resolution of left organizations.
However, Sinn Fein appears still very far from the sort of systematic debate that exists in revolutionary
Marxist organizations or in some broader revolutionary organizations with which Sinn Fein now identifies, such as the FSLN or the
FMLN.
An organization united around
International Viewpoint 25 November 19B5
general sentiments and action faces very difficult hurdles in taking up the basic strategic questions in systematic debate. Obviously, there are all sorts of latent, potential, and implicit contradictions that can become dangerously divisive. These problems emerged very clearly in the debate over electoral strategy.
This discussion also seemed to mark a point of no return for the leadership. Although the National Executive as such, and Adams himself, remained aloof from the debate, it was clear that the leadership was pushing for dropping the principle of not taking seats in what republicans consider "illegitimate" parliaments, that is, the London and Dublin parliaments. The debate sharpens
Morrison introduced the debate on a motion to change abstaining from these parliaments from a principle to a tactic by warning strongly against emotionalism and appeals to the past. At the same time, he noted that Bobby Sands was opposed to keeping abstention as a principle. Tom Hartley, one of the Belfast leadership team and a member of the Ard-Chomhairle, spoke for the motion in his "personnel capacity."
A whole series of leaders and activists representative of the new leadership spoke for it, raising again and again the argument that the main principle of the movement should be "to win." Moreover, the way had been prepared for putting such a question by a previous internal conference, in which a respected republican of the older generation, John Joe McGirl, had raised arguments against abstention.
Nonetheless, the right mobilized strong opposition and managed to defeat the motion by 187 votes to 161. Moreover, the abstention-as-asacred-principle bloc seemed clearly this time to be a right-wing one.
had been possible for the first time to have a real debate on the question, that the gap in the vote was not so great, and that with continued growth of the movement among the radical youth and in the urban areas, it is only a matter of time until the old position falls.
The first problem with this is that if the left knows that it is only a matter of time, so does the right, and there is no reason to think that it will remain passive indefinitely waiting for that to happen.
More importantly still, this vote tied the hands of the leadership going into a vital political test, the 26 County general elections, which will come up in less than two years. In particular, if the British and Irish talks produce any credible plan "for settling the Northern Ireland problem," the elections could become the main opportunity for challenging it. What is more, the progress and even survival of the movement could depend on making an effective answer. At the moment, Sinn Fein has political maneuvering room. But the objective of the British and Irish governments is to get into a position where they can isolate it and smash it.
The final vote at the ard-fheis was also an apparent point of no return. Sinn Fein became the first party with mass influence to come out for "women's right to choose." This motion was passed by a vote of 77 to 73, that is, a very narrow majority with less than half the number of delegates voting that voted on the question of abstention.
This was the last debate, and it is possible that by the time the vote came up, a lot of the rural delegates had left. But the support for it reflected some powerful forces operating in the new Sinn Fein. One obvious one is the recruitment of radicalized urban youth. But another seems to be a general rise in consciousness and confidence of the women involved in the struggle in the North.
(Formally the leadership opposed this position, supporting a vague intermediate one. They did not, however, fight hard against it, and clearly their political base voted for it.)
The Church and the Dublin government immediately opened up a barrage on this issue, with the Dublin minister for justice trumpeting that the Provos had made unborn children a target.
Besides these sharp debates, there were skirmishes around questions such as whether or not Sinn Fein should be a party, the attempts to structure the organization, the role of elected representatives, and there was a muted debate over whether Sinn Fein should or should not agree to take some sort of "nonviolence" oath to keep legality.
The delegates who opposed Sinn Fein being a party touched a key point. If the leadership moves decisively to transform Sinn Fein into a revolutionary party, it is hard to see how they can avoid serious divisions. But if they try to do this through a slow process of education, it is equally hard to see how they can avoid having to pay the price of political paralysis, which in the pressures of the Irish situation, could cause incalculable problems.
On the other hand, since the failure of the Officials, more flexible forms of uniting politically heterogeneous forces in a revolutionary anti-imperialist struggle have proved successful, notably the revolutionary fronts in Nicaragua and El Salvador. It remains to be seen what concrete lessons the Sinn Fein leadership will draw from its new interest in the revolutionary liberation movements in other countries.
In any case, another great political drama has almost certainly begun in Ireland, toward which no genuine revolutionist can be a disinterested spectator. In particular, it is important to give a new impetus to solidarity and to foster an understanding and collaborative attitude in the left and working class movement toward the republican movement.
In the past, there has been a convergence of right-wingers and ultraleftists on this issue. This time there was little sign of young ultraleft antielectoralists. The young speakers against the motion seemed to come essentially from traditionalist families, to be chips that had not flown far from the old blocks.
Thus, the right won a decisive victory against the new leadership on the principal debate at the ardTheis, after a long series of motions putting general left positions had passed with little or no opposition.
Afterwards, you could hear arguments trying to minimize the importmce of this vote. It was noted that it
With the H-block campaign the republican movement broadened out (DR)
THOMAS
SMASH H BLOcK
International Viewpoint 25 November 1985