Few
of those who are termed Republican Dissidents
now believe continuing the armed struggle to bring
about the reunification of the island of Ireland
is a viable option; however what they all agree
on is, if there are no other options open to those
who suffer occupation and oppression, then armed
struggle is a legitimate right of all oppressed
peoples to get out from under the yoke they suffer
under.
The
aforementioned is just one of the areas where
major differences with the current SF leadership
have emerged. Although, I might add, not with
the majority of Irish republicans, who still stand
by this most basic of human rights principles.
However, by accepting policing and the UK justice
system in the north of Ireland, Mr Adams has allowed
the Unionists/UK State, and the media, to retrospectively
claim there was never any justification for armed
struggle in the north of Ireland, as they claim
there was always a democratic option available
for Irish Republicans to engage in. Which is nonsense,
as it ignores both the type of place the six counties
was in 1969 and how the state-let came into being
and was maintained with its in-built gerrymandered
Protestant majority. As the founding leadership
of NI stated clearly and publicly, their state
would be a Protestant State for a Protestant People,
and so it was until the insurrection broke out
in 1969 and to a certain degree remains to this
day.
Today Gerry Adams makes much of the need for Unity
when addressing any doubts the SF membership might
express over his strategy. But he negates to mention
the only place you can find totally unity is in
a local authority graveyard, and what good is
that for the living? In truth the only unity Gerry
Adams is interested in is unity on his terms.
Does anyone really believe that 95% of the membership
of SF support their leadership whole heartedly
on policing? Of course not. Yet members of SF,
often believing they were doing so for the best
of reasons, were convinced by their leaders to
support policing in the name of Republican Unity,
whilst other delegates were called to Attention.
I
feel in time they will come to regret this bitterly.
What they did was recognize the legitimacy of
the UK State in Ireland. There really is no other
way to look at this. Why else would Mr Adams spend
such an enormous effort to convince his membership
that the dissidents are a threat to the unity
of Provisional Republicanism, when in fact at
this time they are no such thing? Take the March
7 Assembly elections. The dissidents make up a
fraction of the candidates that are standing,
whether in the election as a whole or amongst
those who are vying for the Nationalist communities
vote.
Mr
Adams does not claim the Workers Party, Socialist
Party or the SDLP are a threat to the unity of
his movement, yet all three parties argue for
eventual reunification. The reason he fears the
dissidents, especially those who accept the armed
struggle is over, is the ideas and tradition they
represent, and because they are grappling in an
open and democratic manner to find a way to move
Republicanism forward that does not mean reverting
to armed struggle, nor, like SF under Mr Adams,
mean publicly bending the knee to the UK State
and its loyalist acolytes in the north by rejecting
all that has gone before. True, the dissidents
have not yet reached any solid conclusions or
come up with a way to move forward with certainty.
But what the dissidents have proved is that unlike
the SF leadership, they do not fear open debate,
or democratic accountability. Thus, standing candidates
in this election is only the beginning.
When the dissidents chose Peggy O'Hara as one
of their candidates, they were spot on. She epitomizes
Irish Republican dignity and steadfastness. I
understand why she is standing as an abstentionist
candidate, but were she to gain a seat, I feel
she and her supporters should reconsider their
policy of abstention from Stormont Assembly. Her
very presence in that mockney parliament would
be a daily reminder to the Shinners that Republicans
do not have to cross over a line in the sand to
gain electoral support, the more so when the line
in question has been placed there by the UK State
and demands of Republicans that they renegade
on their core political beliefs.
