|
In a recent article, the Belfast
Telegraph's political correspondent Noel McAdam
wrote about Gerry Adams in the following terms after
he had interviewed him on the publication of the paperback
edition of Mr Adams latest book: “He is keen
to write, and encourage others, in a more critical
and analytical way, to assess the course of Republicanism
and involve others perhaps in a series of essays to
include the harder questions like 'where we went wrong'.”
This news will come as a pleasant
surprise to those Left Republicans who whilst supporting
the PIRA cease-fire, differ with Mr Adams as to how
the Republican movement should move forward now that
the road of armed struggle has been closed, at least
for the time being by the majority of Ireland's people,
who overwhelmingly voted for an alternative route
to National Unity in the ballots north and south to
approve the GFA, changes to the 'Republics' constitution,
etc. *
To date, sadly, Mr Adams' Republican critics have
found all SF media outlets closed to them, including
somewhat pettily even the letters pages of the local
Belfast newspaper the Andersontowns News. If
they publish in the mainstream press they are often
abused or smeared by SF apparatchiks and their minions
as working with the enemy, no matter that leading
Sinn Fein politicians, understandably, give interviews
to such papers almost daily. Indeed, if these Republican
critics of Adams' go as far as to publish on The
Blanket e-magazine, I am certain without a shadow
of doubt their name is logged down in the PRM security
department's black book, for future reference. Still,
I suppose one should be thankful Mr Scappiticci is
no longer employed within that particular department.
Of course it hardly needs to be said that none of
this helps lead to any kind of constructive dialogue
developing between the two groups of Republicans.
It may be that Mr Adams does not intend to include
his Republican critics in his desire for a critical
and analytical debate. He does after all have a history
of being willing to openly discuss the wherewithal
of the situation in the north with Unionists and the
British, members of the US administration and Congress,
politicians from most shades who operate in the south,
along with many others, but he has shown little willingness
to debate in a civilised manner these issues with
his Republican critics, many of whom not that many
years ago were his comrades. It is as if once he has
gained a majority for his viewpoint within the Provisional
Republican Movement, then those in the minority must
passively accept his will, or take their leave of
SF and forever hold their tongues, which is of course
not how Mr Adams himself behaved in the past, nor
is it in the democratic traditions of Irish Republicanism.
To put it bluntly this is more in tune with the Leninist
method of party organisation, which goes under the
misnomer of Democratic Centralism. Basically what
this boils down too is the militarisation of the inner
workings of the party. The party leadership operates
as a general staff, which send its orders down their
chain of command to the party membership, who are
expected to obey and implement them in a disciplined
manner without argument or farther discussion.
Understandably those Leninists who
continue to advocate such a system would publicly
argue that the policies that the leadership send down
to the party membership to be implement, originally
became party policy after intense democratic debate
within all party branches and organs. In reality,
to put it crudely, this is horseshit. If one analyzes
Lenin's Bolsheviks, democratic practice was a complete
sham. Lenin's Party, along with all communist party's
that affiliated to the Third International, were about
as top-down policy and discipline wise as it is possible
to be. Indeed, that democratic centralism was at the
core of party organisation is demonstrated by the
fact that it was one of the main criterias demanded
by Lenin’s Third International of those Communist
and Socialist Parties applying to affiliate to it.
Thus it is a great shame that Mr Adams chooses to
operate in the manner I have described above. If,
looking on the optimistic side, Mr Adams were to mean
what he says and he does intend this exchange to be
all inclusive within the nationalist and republican
communities, then this would be an opportunity for
all Republicans too, if not find common ground, then
at the very least understand that each side is sincere
in the ideas they are putting forth, plus their reasons
for doing so and that neither is the main 'enemy'
of the other.
Much of the credit for the enormous opportunities
that have opened up for SF after the ceasefire must
go in the first place to Mr Adams and his closest
colleagues. However, those left Republicans who at
first went along with him have gradually become more
and more critical. The reason being is they fear that
he is about to squander these opportunities and thus
the enormous sacrifices made by the volunteers of
Oglaigh na hEireann and the communities from whence
they came, by building a Mark II version of Fianna
Faíl -- a party for which power is all; what
you do with it once it is attained is secondary. Whereas
Left Socialist Republicans outside of SF and an ever
increasing number still within it feel that if it
is to be of any use to the constituency that created
the present incarnation of SF, the party must solidly
bed itself down as a left of centre Republican Socialist
Party, staffed at the highest level by working people
from town and country, not base its actual politics
in practice, on a mirror image of whoever Mr Adams
is currently engaging with. It is almost as if when
Mr Adams is in the company of Clinton, he is a free
marketer with a liberal bent; with the leaders of
Green Corporate America he is all for globalisation
and multi-national investment in Irelands economy;
with Blair he sees the value of close links with the
US administration, no matter who sits in the White
House.
Some will undoubtedly see the aforementioned as being
harsh on Mr Adams and Sinn Fein's current leadership.
If so all I would ask is where is the meat? Whilst
SF Ministers sat in the Stormont Government they operated
PPF, which party policy opposes, although it is a
Clinton and Blair favourite. Whilst raising a glass
to the US President in the White House on St Patrick's
Day, 2003, the very man who had only shortly before
ordered his armed forces to illegally invade Iraq,
a sovereign nation, Adams seemed to have seen no contradiction
in doing so, despite SF being opposed to the war.
Yet he did seem to feel it was important for him to
publicly declare that he would not be demonstrating
against President Bush's recent visit to Ireland.
Why, as to make such a statement could hardly have
helped rally the SF troops to participate in the demo
against the visit?
If one reads Republican News these days there
are reams of articles about the forward march of SF,
one victory after another is enthusiastically reported.
Nothing wrong with this, however what is missing is
what these Councillors and Ministers do once in office?
Some of these SF Councillors now share control of
local councils. Yet we are rarely told via AP/RN
the benefits this power has brought their constituents.
Could this be one of the reasons why the actual SF
vote in the north is falling? Yes, as I have demonstrated
above the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis does pass radical left
wing policies and they do become part of the party
program. It is just that far too few are implemented
if the chance arises. Farther down the SF political
chain there seems to be an unspoken policy of not
upsetting certain individuals and the interests they
represent. Hence SF role in local government of late
has a certain impotence about it.
There is little doubt that the ruling classes in both
Ireland and England would fear a mass Socialist Republican
Party far more than they ever did the armed struggle.
Why? Well as recent developments in Ireland have demonstrated,
from the point of view of the bourgeoisie, even if
it did shed a tear for its property when PIRA destroyed
it, it knows that it can soon recover these loses
and more to the point, it is far easier to put the
comparatively small armed units of the IRA back into
the genie's bottle at the end of the armed struggle,
than a movement that can both lead and empower the
working classes through the ballot box. Once out of
the genie's bottle, history has taught us that the
masses within their own lifetime can never be the
same again and will fight tooth and nail to defend
their political gains and honour.
Briefly
this is why Mr Adams at this stage of the struggle
is so wrong to place individuals such as Mary Lou
McDonald, who through no fault of her own comes from
a middle class background, into such prominence within
the Republican Movement. For working people to see
one of their own in such positions, in itself empowers
them; i.e., if they can do it so perhaps can me and
mine. After all, Mr Adams himself is living proof
of this. To simply follow the old reformist route
of placing middle class people into leadership positions,
so that they can act, as tribunes, for working class
people in the nation's political chambers, cannot
but demoralise working people for it is saying to
them that they are not intelligent enough to conduct
political intercourse on their own behalf. (Talk about
pulling up the ladder of opportunity once aboard!)
Yes, the skills that middle class people can bring
to the struggle are of value, but is Mr Adams really
saying that SF has no one from a working class background
who could have adequately stood for the European Parliament
in the Dublin area? True, a party like SF may, like
all parties these days, find it difficult to recruit
working class youngsters into its ranks as political
activists. But surely it can hardly help by denying
these youngsters possible future role models who originated
from within their own communities.
To
conclude, if Mr Adams is sincere about wanting to
open up a debate, perhaps he should start by offering
his main Republican socialist critics space in the
press his party now controls. One does not expect
him to turn over space within AP/RN. But would
it hurt to allow one of his foremost Republican critics,
say Anthony McIntyre, to have a regular column in
the Andersonstown News, which is after all,
both men's local newspaper.
*Of course I recognise that some
Republicans do not accept this and continue to support
the armed struggle as the only viable way to remove
the British. Whilst this is a perfectly legitimate
position from a Republican point of view, in the main
I am not referring to them in the article.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
