|
At
Easter, Republicans commemorate the 1916 Rising. What
did the 1916 insurgents stand for? They were out to
break the connection with the British Empire and for
an all-Ireland democratic and secular Republic. They
were not seeking to bring it into existence, but proclaimed
it in arms:
We
declare the right of the people of Ireland to the
ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control
of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible.
The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people
and government has not extinguished the right, nor
can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction
of the Irish people. In every generation theIrish
people have asserted their right to national freedom
and sovereignty: six times during the past three
hundred years they have asserted it in arms. Standing
on that fundamental right and again asserting it
in arms in the face of the world, we hereby proclaim
the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State,
and we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades
in arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare,
and of its exaltation among the nations.
This
is the expression of the desire for freedom and a
challenge to an oppressive foreign government’s
right to dominate the people. It is important to note
the centrality of the separatist element - they were
for national self-determination, and nothing less;
they were not there for “equality”, “parity
of esteem” or “all party talks”. There
is absolute incommensurability between the Easter
Monday revolutionaries and today’s Good Friday
soldiers. It is the democratic alternative to the
Unionist veto (disguised as consent) and the institutionalisation
of sectarianism. The Republic proclaimed in 1916 was
later incarnated in the First and Second Dail, and
overthrown by a counter revolution in 1921-1922. It
cannot be voted out of existence, even if the majority
of the people vote in favour of Stormont and Leinster
House, as in 1922 and 1998 for example.
Is
a Republican the person who gives his/her allegiance
to this Republic?
The
Irish Republic is entitled to and hereby claims
the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman…Until
our arms have brought the opportune moment for the
establishment of a permanent National Government,
representative of the whole people of Ireland, and
elected by the suffrages of all her men and women,
the Provisional Government hereby constituted will
administer the civil and military affairs of the
Republic in trust for the people.
What
is significant about this is that the insurgents proclaimed
themselves to be the legitimate government of Ireland
when no one recognised them as such. They did not
have an electoral mandate, the majority of the Irish
people supported the Home Rule party. Neither had
they international recognition. Ireland then was a
normal, democratic, state, and by the standards of
liberal theory or international law the rising was
not legitimate. The 1916 insurgents were what some
call today a “microgroup”! It is on that
basis that the various Army Councils claiming “continuity”
with 1916 can say that they administer the military
affairs of the Republic “in trust for the people”.
This is what is probably politically most explosive
about the Proclamation of the Republic: it authorises
“microgroups” with no electoral mandate
to take up arms against British rule. This is why
celebrating 1916 causes so much unease amongst the
establishment and has been attacked by revisionist
historians. The rising only received retrospective
legitimation. It reshaped Irish history and had more
impact than decades of constitutional politics.
What
are the values upheld by the Republic?:
The
Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty,
equal rights and equal opportunities to all its
citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the
happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and
of all its parts, cherishing all the children of
the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences
carefully fostered by an alien government which
have divided a minority from the majority in the
past.
Those
are the elements of secularism (separation of Church
and State), non-sectarianism (to substitute the common
name of Irishman and Irishwoman in place of Catholic,
Protestant and Dissenter), social justice. It is not
so much the Proclamation and its content which are
radical, but the act of Proclaiming the Republic,
and not least through the force of arms. And it is
this radical act which Republicans are celebrating.
Some people would object to the relevancy of this
Republicanism. They would point that the people in
the South already have a Republic, that history shows
that Republicanism always sells out. So why do we
think Republicanism is still relevant?
The
first reason is that Irish Republicanism is not yet
a “dead dog” that can be ignored or passed
over. It played a significant historical role, and
is still a major element in Irish political life today,
a lot to do with the unresolved national question.
It is impossible to build a left current that either
ignores or remains outside Republicanism. To ignore
it would be ignoring the experience of history and
a major political force today. The second reason is
there is a democratic content within Republicanism
that has not yet exhausted itself. The fact that there
exists within Irish Republicanism a conservative as
well as a radical element, and that there is a militarist
and elitist tendency as well as a democratic and popular
one should of course not be passed over. What is essential
is that there is within Republicanism a potential
for radical development. The task ahead is to develop
that radical potential. The point is not to break,
or to abstractly negate Irish Republicanism because
of its defects, but to redirect, to improve Irish
Republicanism.
We
could characterise Irish Republicanism in the same
way Jurgen Habermas characterised modernity : 'an
incomplete project.' Irish Republicanism shouldn’t
be abandoned - it can still be a vehicle for the revolutionary
transformation of society today. Given the continued
structural and social exclusion and alienation of
the
nationalist working class and rural poor in the north,
Kevin Bean has argued that Republicanism will continue
to function as a lightening conductor of both social
and national-democratic discontent. Likewise, the
growing economic inequalities and social exclusion
of sections of both the urban and rural populations
in the south will be expressed by growing popular
challenges to the precarious success and inherently
unstable hegemony of the Celtic Tiger. The point is
to preserve and radicalise what is best in Republicanism,
to complete - not abandon - the project.
The
objection that Republicans have “sold out”
throughout history can be refuted by pointing out
that Glasnevin and Milltown are full of those who
stayed faithful to the Republic. It is not necessary
to move towards something called “Post-Republicanism”
because Irish Republicanism has not exhausted its
progressive potential. On what ground is it reasonable
to think that Irish Republicanism can be re-adjusted?
Irish Republicanism has changed and adapted over the
years to the prevailing conditions. Irish Republicanism
is not static, but develops. The fact that Republicanism
changes added to the fact has a democratic and progressive
potential, that indicates that Republicanism can be
changed and redirected.
(This
is an edited version of an article in The Starry Plough)
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
