It
is the sheer militaristic arrogance of the Adamsite
leadership of SF, which was amply demonstrated
in the 95% plus vote at the recent Special Ard
Fheis, that may in time lead to a fall in the
party's fortunes. Coupled with the absolute pliability
of that party's membership when it comes to deciding
on SF's core political platform, it leaves few
people within the party who are willing to even
contemplate holding the Adams clique to account
when they make a mistake, as we all do now and
again. Instead, what occurs when party members
differ from the leadership in any numbers on a
matter of principle, is that they either resign
and walk away. Or they put a peg on the end of
their noses and keep it there until the stench
of the betrayal of core republican values, or
the exposure of UK State infiltration of the leadership,
passes.
This
is highlighted by the fact that since the 1990s,
no faction within SF that has differed with the
leadership strategy and tactics has brought their
differences to an Ard Fheis as an organized grouping,
so that these differences can be argued out publicly
before the party membership as a whole.
The
aforementioned becomes clearer if we look at one
of the less contentious, but still vitally important
political issues that has erupted and continues
to swirl around leading members of SF, and consider
how the matter was dealt with by SF's leadership.
When the words 'the suits' was first used by Republicans
to describe SFs leadership clique, one could almost
hear the collective wince within that party and
beyond. For it caught perfectly the growing gap
between that leadership and those they represent.
At first the way the term was used was somewhat
unfair, as what the Shinner leadership were attempting
to do with the suits was present a respectable
face to the media, not unlike working class people
wearing their Sunday best to church, a funeral
or wedding.
But
given time, some of those regarded as 'the suits'
became far too comfortable in their new attire.
What started out as a reasonable SF propaganda
tool turned into a detrimental fact of party life.
Years ago when I was first elected a full time
trade union convener on a large construction project,
the first thing I did was bin my boiler-suit.
After all, I thought to myself, I would no longer
be on the tools as hence-forth I would be dealing
on a full time basis with trade union business
on the site; I'd have little need of wearing a
'cover all' to stop the grease and mud spoiling
my clothes.
Immediately
on doing so I was approached by an old Trade Unionist
who had been at the game for decades. In a non-confrontational
way he asked if I thought I might reconsider my
decision on not wearing the boiler suit, as by
not doing so I would be separating myself outwardly
from those I represented, and petty jealousies
will undoubted erupt amongst the men I represent.
He suggested that during negotiations with management,
due to the way I was dressed, they may well see
me as not dissimilar to themselves and there is
a real danger that I may start viewing them in
the same way. I was in my early twenties at the
time, but it was one of the best pieces of advice
I have ever been given and stood me in good stead
down the years. For I had learnt that no elected
official/leader, whether in the trade unions,
political party, business, whereever, can allow
themselves to become separated from those they
offer leadership to, not without detrimental consequences.
Outward signs of difference can either be misinterpreted
or can tell us a great deal about the true or
potential situation.
At
first the change in the leading Shinners' sartorial
appearance went down pretty well within the core
republican communities, there was a bit of lite
banter and mickey taking, but most were proud
that their political leaders were seen on the
TV in the company of some of the world's leading
politicians and in the manner of their dress,
looked their equals.
When criticism of 'the suits' from within the
republican community first emerged into the media
spotlight, it is pretty clear that SF decided
to confront their critics on this matter head
on and they decided to add holiday homes into
the equation in an attempt to swat two birds with
one stone. They accused those who made accusations
about The Suits and Holiday Homes as begrudgers,
living in the past etc, and to their shame still
do.. It has become obvious to all that this tactic
has failed to work, indeed it has only aggravated
the matter, for what resulted from this tactic
was that many of the suits took this as a green
light from Mr Adams to enrich themselves. To this
extent we now have senior members of SF owning
more than one home and a number of holiday lets
both at home and abroad — which just cannot
be right, for to claim to be a progressive politician
and then by your own selfish behavior contribute
to another soul's misery is hypocrisy in the extreme.
How SF must now regret taking this tact, for the
whole issue of second homes has become a real
issue within both working and middle class communities,
not least because of the rise in property prices
throughout Ireland, part of which has been brought
about by those who have brought a second home
as an investment. The inability of many young
people to to be able to afford to get onto the
property ladder is becoming a real problem. The
failure of both the UK and RoI governments to
deal with the problem of the lack of affordable
housing by building decent and affordable public
housing for rent or part purchase has forced many
people into private lets, which offers none of
the security of tenancy that previous generations
enjoyed, who were tenants of Local Councils or
the Housing Corporation.
For
SF, which has more contact with its grass roots
electorate than almost any other party in Ireland,
to have fallen at this particular hurdle is indicative
of the arrogance and silent compliance I mentioned
at the top of this piece. Housing, whether public
or private, will increasingly become an important
element of the political agenda within Ireland,
the UK and the countries of the Mediterranean
basin where many of these holiday homes are situated,
and rightly so.
Sadly,
Ireland has a long history of politicians who
live their lives on the maxim of 'do what we say,
ignore what we do'. The personal history of most
of the current leadership of SF has been one of
struggle and sacrifice. That some of them have
fallen into the aforementioned category proves
that no one is beyond the enticements of public
office. Thus I end where I began; if the rank
and file membership of SF do not call their leaders
to account on the issue of second homes, then
the electorate will do it for them, either by
voting for others or by staying at home come election
day. Perhaps they should remind their leaders
that loyalty is a two way street and not a 24
hour bar at which the likes of Mr Adams and co
can continuously sup.
