The
issues raised in Gerry Adam's recent presidential
address to his parties Árd Fheis give rise
to an ongoing concern regarding the fundamental
misrepresentation of the basic republican position
by that party. There was a time when such Árd
Fheisenna performed their proper function, a forum
for democratic debate within republicanism, but
given the tone and content of the presidential address
such times are evidently passed within Provisional
Sinn Fein. A political position and organisation
which is not constructed or run according to democratic
principles can in no way claim, duplicitously or
not, to be representatives of Irish republicanism.
As Irish republicans we are no strangers to the
undemocratic premise of British Parliamentary activity
in Ireland, endorsed by the Good Friday Agreement,
and as resolute opponents of this activity we are
no strangers to the undemocratic methods employed
by those who sought furtive alliance with them.
On behalf of the 32 County Sovereignty Movement
I now wish to address some of the issues raised.
Calling
his parties' attention to the fact that 2006 marks
the 25th anniversary of the Hunger Strikes Mr Adams
relayed;
I
submit to him that no such difficulty exists. We
do justice to their memory by being true to it.
We do justice to their memory by practicing a politics
which does not undermine the legitimacy of their
struggle. We do justice to their memory by defending
what they defended. We do justice to their memory
with freedom of speech and democratic debate. And
we do justice to their memory by reflecting the
Five Demands for what they are, a singular demand
for the British Government to desist in its violation
of Irish National Sovereignty. The Hunger Strikes
were a separatist action deserving far more than
opinion poll rhetoric to mark them. For as much
as 2006 represents the 25th anniversary of those
events it also marks the 8th anniversary of events
which retrospectively criminalised them. Those who
signed the GFA, and in so doing afforded rights
to the British Government to rule in Ireland, did
so at the expense of the rights which the Hunger
Strikers entrusted to us to defend and pursue. Is
Mr Adams now telling the republican community that
the British Government and Margaret Thatcher were
the ten men's lawful gaolers after all? This is
the true difficulty of which Mr Adams speaks, and
which he now faces, because it is the political
truth of his actions.
Ninety
years ago a group of Irishmen and Irishwomen, without
electoral mandate given or sought, declared the
sovereignty of the Irish people to be inalienable
and indefeasible. They acted on their opinion. And
they were right. The 90th anniversary of the 1916
Rising is also the 90th anniversary of a continuous
political practice which frustrates its realisation.
Mr Adams and his party are now part of this frustrating
politics. When Pearse stood in the portico of the
GPO and read aloud the Proclamation of the Republic
he brought a haunting spectre to Irish politics
and to British politics in Ireland. He brought clarity
to distinguish the difference between the two. The
sovereignty of the Irish people represents this
clear difference and it defines all political practices
which are acceptable to it. Any politics which undermines,
denies or usurps this sovereignty cannot be reconciled
to the objectives of 1916 and can only serve to
augment their continuous frustration. Implicit in
the GFA, both in acceptance of British preconditions
for talks which led to its signing, and to its actual
content, is a denial of our national sovereignty
and our right to national self-determination without
external impediment.
The
veracity of this observation is to be found in the
actions of Mr Adams and his party. The acceptance
of the 'consent principle', the criminalising of
armed struggle, decommissioning at a British behest,
the standing down of PIRA and the endless rounds
of one-way 'difficult decisions' for republicans
to make all point to the inevitable consequences
of practicing British politics in Ireland. It will
not end at this. Having conceded to the legitimacy
of partition Mr Adams and his party must now act
within the political parameters as defined by the
governing authorities of both partitionist states.
In effect Mr Adams faces what could be termed The
De Valera Test. The measure of ones loyalty to a
political and constitutional dispensation is to
be gauged by the vehemence in which former comrades,
who remain resolutely opposed to it, are dealt with
by the accepted institutions of the new dispensation.
It represents the ultimate authority of, and complete
subservience to, the newly recognised state. The
British demanded it of Collins in relation to the
Four Courts garrison, the Twenty Six County state
demanded it of De Valera in relation to the IRA
and both will demand it now of Mr Adams in relation
to 'those who are frequently labelled by the media
as 'dissidents'.' This is the clear political reality
of the Policing issue and I urge Mr Adams to abandon
it in the same forthright terms which he accused
others of abandoning 1916.
I
welcome Mr Adam's invitation to debate the current
political situation with us pertaining to partition
and in as much as the invitation will be welcomed
by republicans it equally needs to be explained
if it is to be taken as sincerely meant. Accepting
the invitation in the spirit of his own words,
'Sinn
Féin will listen attentively and respectfully
to everyone's ideas'.
I
earnestly hope that such spirit will extend to its
practice. The 32CSM are strong advocates of democratic
debate within republicanism and between republicans
and other parties. To this end we initiated this
process with our strategy document Irish Democracy,
A Framework For Unity outlining our analysis and
proposals to address the present impasse in our
country. Included in this strategy were submissions
to the various parties and governments seeking clarity
on their publicly held positions and offering alternative
political stratagems as they related to the current
political and constitutional dispensation. This
was forwarded to Mr. Adams, as president of his
party, in November 2005. Has it been received 'attentively
and respectfully' given that its actual receipt
has not yet been officially acknowledged let alone
responded to? As Chairperson of the National Executive
of the 32CSM I re-issue the invitation to Mr Adams,
and the other parties, to engage with us on our
analysis to see which political opinion should be
entitled to more than its mere holding.
No
political position should fear democratic debate
and the veracity of such positions should not be
gauged by their veneered popularity but by their
ability to withstand the scrutiny of such debate.
Mandates in Ireland mean different things to different
people and have done so throughout our history.
Indeed mandates have been cited to justify occupation
and partition and have also been invoked by those
who abandoned the republican struggle to justify
their doing so. Our sovereignty mandates us to act
in its defence. Its violation by the British government
mandates us to seek its restoration. The 32CSM will
not abandon our mandate.