|
The
fact that the Republican Movement has decommissioned
some of its weapons may well be deemed as surrender
from one quarter or tactical from another. Nevertheless,
whatever is said or done it is an event so blatant
in its historical significance not only to the Republican
Movement or like minded struggles but more importantly
to the international ruling politic, that revisionist
historians may barely be needed to taint or support
a given line. What is most interesting for myself
in this continual process is not the fact that weapons
were decommissioned but the fact that very little
of present day republican grassroots had questioned
the persistent breaking of core principles.
While
logically republicanism is modernizing itself to adapt
to changing times through different avenues of struggle
the reality though is that after that first long standing
position was broken and once the first act of decommissioning
was accepted everything else became and will become
increasingly easier in the dissolving of past positions.
Continual renewal of core principles then will evermore
be articulated as a constant progression of moving
forward to the goal of a united Ireland rather than
to hold onto that which is holding them back. So now
then moving forward within republicanism towards ever
more solid constitutional nationalism. This is due
in part to the constant need to forever establish
broad party based class inclusiveness while administering
centre-right governance.
Yet
this is the circle found in many similar historical
situations of similar post-conflict scenarios where
political inclusiveness has meant not only moving
aside past principles in the process of moving forward
but also seeing growth in economic and social exclusiveness
for many of their original core constituents. This
enables the establishment to provide cosmetic changes
in such areas, with those who once stood outside governance
now implementing for them, and who bring along many
of their constituents. And of course in doing so the
establishment's politic is made more solid while dissent
is further limited and isolated.
This
is also a major reason in the calls for republicans
to both sit on the policing boards and advocate that
people join the police which they will undoubtedly
do. Why? Firstly, Sinn Fein is a party of many internal
ideas and beliefs. Consequently, then it will have
many contradictions which are increasingly visible
as modern republicanism continually redefines itself
in many areas. In the past the joining of the police
would have been put in the context of a principle
within republicanism now it will be put in the context
of modernizing republicanism for transitional governance.
Socialists are opposed to the calling of persons to
join the policing (force) service. The police are
both an instrument and an extension of the state on
behalf of that state interest. Such a force specialises
in protecting affluent areas and property while harassing
and demonizing working class communities areas. That
is why there is more laws protecting private property
than there is protecting persons. All this will not
change no matter who sits on the policing boards.
Republicans, like others before them, will change
little on such boards serving as a mudguard to clean
up and give only credence.
Secondly
the police and its variants will not be held accountable
on such boards by a handful of political representatives
whose role for some will increasingly contradict their
working class constituents and their state role as
part representatives for such a force.The remarkable
similarity of some post conflict situations tends
to give an understanding of this problem despite some
believing that we have a unique situation. Although
materially conditions can differ there is though no
political uniqueness in repressive or covert state
tactics or the nurturing of, or legislative implementation
of division. This has always been determined by the
relevant interest of the state, the nature and size
of the perceived threat and the conditions, political,
economic or strategic weighted against it. Armed with
the state it can then decide on coercion, opposition,
support (overtly or covertly of whatever side) or
repression inside or outside its own definitions of
law. Whatever those conditions, state interest will
dictate that level of response.
What
changes then if any will working class areas see on
the issue of policing? In South Africa for example
the police batons passed from white hands to many
black hands yet within many of the same towns and
villages it is the same persons mainly feeling the
brunt of such weapons as they continue to stand against
the still growing economic inequality. So then also
the orange baton will pass eventually to many green
hands and it will be still the working communities
and the most vulnerable who will feel the brunt of
them. In reality their faces, religion or sexuality
may change but the nature of the politic against working
class communities will not. The only difference -
and it is historically repetitive - is that those
who had once opposed it will now be administering
it.
In
effect once again we will almost come that historic
full circle and while I know of genuine socialists
in the Republican Movement it is Sinn Fein's class
contradictions that have helped them to a large extent
implement the present policies in centre-right governance.
It shall, therefore, to a large extent allow them
to call for the joining of the force. As the shutters
come down on a past era of conflict and with republicanism
continually modernizing, could the progressing alignment
towards greater constitutional nationalism in fact,
if successful, deliver then for them only the Republic
without Republicanism?
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
