Friday, May 09, 2008

Abstentionism or absenteeism?

Abstentionism in the past worked very well for Sinn Féin; it provided a brilliant change of approach after the December 1918 elections which consigned the tired Irish Parliamentary, rather unfairly in some respects, to the dustbin of post-1916 20th century Irish history. The unilateral declaration of independence and the setting up of a separatist assembly which soon became the legitimate parliament of the Irish people, the First Dáil, was a great success. That was then; how about now?

Nowadays there is no alternative revolutionary assembly; just the Stormont Assembly in which Sinn Féin MLAs sit. This acceptance of British rule in Ireland marked a belated turnaround from the traditional SF policy of 'kill loads of people and ruin the economy' in order to somehow force the British from Ireland by rendering the 6 counties ungovernable. Given that the Stormont Assembly has been given its devolved powers from Westminster and that all primary NI legislation still must go through the Westminster Parliament, Sinn Féin's abstentionism in London is akin to taking seats on a subcommittee but refusing to sit on the committee itself.

Another element to this debate, and one just as important, is practical political reality. Progressive nationalism has, in recent years, gone from strength to strength in a UK context. Alex Salmond's SNP have enacted social democratic policies in Scotland to make the English green with envy and public satisfaction is running high (even if support for their raison d'être of independence is not). Salmond predicts great gains in the next Westminster election and, with anti-Toryism ingrained in the Scottish political culture and dissatisfaction with Brown's beleaguered government, there are few real reasons not to believe him. In Wales at the last Welsh Assembly election, the centre-left Plaid Cymru achieved 22.4% of the popular vote which translated into a net gain of 3 seats. Voters' anger at Brown may damage Rhodri Morgan's Welsh Labour Party and Plaid could also see their MP count rise. Together with the SDLP these parties form a centre-left nationalist coalition. In the event of a hung Parliament or, god forbid, a return to power by the Conservative & Unionist Party under messrs Cameron and Osborne, Sinn Féin's 5 MPs could add to the vaguely leftish nationalist bloc in wringing out concessions (much like the IPP did with the Liberals over the Peoples' Budget of 1909). Concerns are even more pressing with Peter Robinson signalling that the DUP will work more with the Tories and may vote with Labour on the issue of 42-days detention without charge (those Unionists do love a good bit of internment). Those 5 votes could be vital too over the vote on the 10p tax band as the SDLP and DUP have already promised to vote against the government.

So, with possible political leverage for nationalists to exploit and the ideological explanation for abstentionism redundant, will SF earn their expenses by actually voting or will Marty and co. just ride around in their ministerial cars and attend a 'partitionist assembly' while pretending they still oppose British rule in Ireland? Now that they have de facto taken the Oath of Allegiance through their actions will they take it de jure through their words? Like it or not, many issues are still the preserve of Westminster so sometimes it is better to hold your nose and fight for representation and an influence on some areas that affect the day-to-day lives of people in the North of Ireland than to spout 70s Provo gibberish to the faithful while holding hands with Big Ian under the table.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am not coming on to this site any more, I used to read many of the posts with interest and they are usually very good, but seriously your obsession with attacking Sinn Féin is pathetic, any oppertunity. Get a life.

El Matador said...

Anon-

I think not. If you scroll down through posts on the main page, Sinn Féin is hardly mentioned. Your rantr is just a convenient way of you trying to discourage criticism of the provos and refusing to engage in debate about them.

nineteensixtyseven said...

This wasn't intended as an attack on SF, far from it; it was a challenge to them to join with the parliamentary nationalist parties in order to influence some major issues that will present themselves in the near future. If you don't want to enter into this debate as it is too uncomfortable for you then don't but atleast make a comment based on the content of the article.

listen and learn said...

Stop whingeing anon - when you learn to debate in a grown up manner then you might understand the message that the contributor was trying to make - instead of making an ass of yourself! Good commentary 1967 I agree with your sentiments totaly

Justin McC said...

As an SDLP member I've always viewed our attendance at Westminster as a necessary evil. Firstly to make the case for civil rights and secondly to give a voice to nationalists which would otherwise have been drowned out by the Provisional campaign.

Times change, we no longer need to degrade ourselves by taking the affirmation (not the oath by the way). Stormont is where the action is at now.

Westminster elections should still be contested on the basis that we will take up the seats when the afirmtion/oath is gone

Anonymous said...

Have to agree very negative posts

El Matador said...

Justin-

If the SDLP were to abstain from Westminster until the affirmation is gone (which could be never), you would effectively be allowing the UK government to disenfranchise nationalists based on a meaningless set of words. While a large amount of power has been devolved to Stormont, a significant chunk hasn't- policing and justice, taxation, foreign affairs, etc. and for those issues it is essential to continue to have a voice in Westminster. Look at the success the SDLP had on getting the British/ Provo 'On The Runs' plans scrapped through Parliament.

I agree that effort should be put into pushing the UK government into abolishing the affirmation, but I don't see any need to leave the voice of Northern Ireland in Westminster the hands of unionists MPs until that point.

The point of the SDLP is to take the fight for justice and democracy to wherever it can achieve results- the streets, the Assembly, Westminster and the Seanad.

truth and jsutice said...

I have to agree with elmat - I too was thinking abot the 'on the runs' fiasco If the SDLP had not been in Westminster the Govt. and their side kicks in SF would have got their way - Stormont is indeed much more important but as elmat says there are still some very important things such as taxation not devolved - until it is economically devolved - if ever - then Westminster will hold all the cards

Abdul-Rahim said...

think of the issues that they would be called on to take votes: Human embryology, 42 days detention. Do you really think they want the liabilities that political reality presents?

Anonymous said...

Well the DUP and Sf are now realising that sitting on the sidelines carping and sniping over what the SDLP and the UUP was the easy bit ! The ball is now firmly in their court and the last year has shown that when real decisions have to be taken - such as the Ritchie decision and loyalists then it is better to be straight and do it up front - however to date they have been shimming over the Giant;'s Causeway, the Sports Stadiun and the Peace Commissioners as well as the education issue - in particular -is Caitrona and SF afraid to take hard decisions alongside their DUP friends?

Anonymous said...

Found this blog from your blog in 2006 - it seems nothing has changed she still doesn't make anything 'clear'or understandable!!


'When are the SDLP going to get this. CRJ is not and has never claimed to be an alternative to a police service. References to Catriona Ruane are pointless she obviously did not know what she was talking about at the time and has since retracked her statement many times'

Andy

29 August, 2006 12:21