LITMIR.BIZ

      3. THE ARMALITE AND THE BALLOT-BOX

      THOUGH SINN FÉIN WAS founded in 1905, the party today has little enough in common with the organisation established by the journalist and propagandist for Irish nationalism, Arthur Griffith, who later headed the delegation which agreed to the Anglo -Irish Treaty of 1921.

      The one major thread of continuity with the original Sinn Féin has been the policy of abstentionism from Westminster. In his book published in 1904 and entitled, The Resurrection of Hungary, Griffith argued that Irish MPs should emulate their Hungarian counterparts who had adopted ‘a manly policy of passive resistance and non-recognition of Austria’s right to rule’.1

      The Hungarians had achieved political and economic autonomy under a dual monarchy, whereby they stayed at home in Budapest instead of going to Vienna. Griffith argued that the Irish could do the same by adopting a similar policy and remaining in Dublin instead of going to Westminster.

      The passive resistance element of his approach did not pass on to his successors in Sinn Féin but the abstentionist policy still survives. At time of writing, Sinn Féin candidates elected as MPs do not take their seats in the House of Commons.

      In view of the major changes in Sinn Féin and IRA policies and tactics over the last thirty-odd years, there has been some speculation about a change of tack in this respect as well. This arose again in advance of the British general election of 7 May 2015 and there were media suggestions that Sinn Féin could wield significant influence by setting aside its stay-at-home approach.

      Writing in the Sunday Business Post, columnist Tom McGurk recalled how the unionist bloc exacted a price from Prime Minister John Major in the 1990s for keeping his Conservative Party government in power:

      Were Sinn Féin to adopt a new policy of ‘qualified abstentionism’ – in other words, a tactical approach where it would only go to Westminster and vote when the party considers the matter of serious significance – what could the republican objection be?... Nor do I believe that anyone could credibly argue that such a policy of ‘qualified abstentionism’ undermines any determining principle of Irish Republicanism... The political reality in the real world, as Sinn Féin has discovered since the party abandoned abstentionism on both sides of the border, is that historic principles can become political cul de sacs.2

      In a column for the Belfast-based Irish News, Tom Collins pointed out that unionists and the moderate nationalists of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) would make use of any leverage they might have if they held the balance of power at Westminster. He continued:

      One party unable to trade its support – explicit or tacit – for political advantage is Sinn Féin. They have been refused entry to the Commons by the British insistence that they swear an oath to the Crown, and by their own unwillingness to see the oath for what it is – a meaningless irrelevance... It’s time Sinn Féin called Westminster’s bluff and turned up. Some left-wing MPs have slurred their words, others have crossed their fingers behind their backs, some – it is claimed – have resorted to gibberish. Gaelic is acceptable, apparently; that opens up a whole host of possibilities.3

      In the same paper two weeks later, columnist Tom Kelly wrote: ‘Sinn Féin has... said it wants to see regime change at Westminster and hopes for a Labour administration. That being the case, who would be surprised that even if they fight the upcoming election on an abstentionist ticket, that they wouldn’t rack up at the Palace of Westminster to vote, if Labour needed the numbers? Some may say “never” but “never” has never been a shibboleth for Sinn Féin under the leadership of Gerry Adams.’4

      In an interview with Stephen Walker on BBC Northern Ireland’s The View, one of Sinn Féin’s five MPs, Francie Molloy from the Mid-Ulster constituency, categorically denied that any such move was planned. Interestingly, the interview was conducted at the Palace of Westminster and, when asked if the policy would be reviewed in the event of a hung parliament, Molloy said: ‘No, definitely not... It’s not up for the ardfheis. It’s not up for review. It’s not up for a decision at this point in time.’

      The use of the phrase ‘at this point in time’ was remarked upon later in the same programme by Peter Kellner, of the polling and market research company YouGov, who commented that ‘it allows you to say “times have changed”.’5

      In his biography of former Sinn Féin president Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, American academic Robert W. White writes that, during an ardchomhairle (national executive) meeting in the early 1980s, Molloy had suggested that Owen Carron should take his seat at Westminster. Carron had won the Fermanagh-South Tyrone by-election of August 1981, which was caused by the death of hunger striker Bobby Sands.6 In response to a query from myself, Francie Molloy, who is currently Sinn Féin MP for Mid-Ulster, said he made the suggestion ‘when Owen was an Anti H-Block Armagh MP’. Carron later got elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly as a Sinn Féin candidate and, when he sought to retain his Westminster seat, without success, in the 1983 UK general election, he ran on behalf of Sinn Féin. Molloy told me he had previously proposed that Sinn Féin end its policy of abstention towards Dáil Eireann at Leinster House. This body was seen as usurping the true Irish parliament, the First Dáil, established in 1919, and the Second Dáil, which was elected in May 1921.

      On Saturday 10 January 1970, two historic events took place in Dublin. One was a major anti-apartheid protest against the presence of the all-white South African rugby team at the stadium on Dublin’s Lansdowne Road.7 The present writer was one of about 10,000 people who took part in the march and, walking past a nearby hotel on the way home, someone pointed out that a Sinn Féin ardfheis (annual conference) was being held there. I did not realise it at the time, but it was an occasion that would have wide and fateful ramifications for both parts of the island.

      The ardfheis continued the next day, with a debate on a motion to drop abstentionism. This continued until 5.30pm, when a vote was taken. A two-thirds majority was required under the party constitution but support for the motion fell short, at 153 votes out of 257.8 However, when asked to back a motion of allegiance to the anti-abstentionist leadership of the movement, thereby implicitly endorsing the new policy, about one-third of delegates walked out and announced the setting-up of what became known as Provisional Sinn Féin.9 A secret convention of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) had already been held the previous month in Boyle, County Roscommon, where a motion to drop abstentionism was approved 28-12, and the minority split away to set up an alternative IRA headed by the ‘Provisional Army Council’ – the 1916 Proclamation was issued by the ‘Provisional Government’. A statement issued by this new body urged republicans not to be ‘diverted into the parliamentary blind alleys’ of Westminster, Leinster House and Stormont’.

      The statement outlined the background to the split from the Provisionals’ point of view: ‘The adoption of the compromising policy referred to is the logical outcome of an obsession in recent years with parliamentary politics, with consequent undermining of the basic military role of the Irish Republican Army. The failure to provide the maximum defence possible of our people in Belfast and other parts of the six counties against the forces of British imperialism last August is ample evidence of this neglect.’10

      In between the two meetings, leading pro-abstentionist Ruairí Ó Brádaigh visited seventy-seven-year-old Tom Maguire at his home in County Mayo. Maguire had been a member of the First andSecond Dáil Éireann, regarded as the only legitimate assemblies in Irish republican ideology. In December 1938, Maguire was one of a group of seven people elected to the Second Dáil (which was never formally dissolved) who signed over what they regarded as the authority of government to the IRA Army Council. That body henceforth considered itself the only legitimate government of Ireland. In a statement issued on 31 December 1969, Maguire said:

      An IRA convention, held in December 1969, by a majority of the

Скачать книгу