Book review: Unfinished Business: the politics of dissent in Irish republicanism

Marisa McGlinchey offers a fascinatingly detailed account of the thinking of what are commonly referred to in the press as ‘dissident republicans’. The author prefers the label ‘radical republicans’ as these are largely people that kept faith with core principles when the republican leadership (represented by the Provisional IRA and Provisional Sinn Fein) changed tack in the 1990s and joined the peace process. As with most things relating to Irish politics and history, it’s more complicated than that….

The book reads a bit like a Phd thesis in both the writing style (rather clunky and stilted) and the structure. Stronger editorial oversight from Manchester University Press might have helped the author work the material into a tighter, clearer narrative. In particular the quotes from interviewees could have been integrated into the narrative more elegantly.  I found some of them slightly ambiguous out of context.

Stylistic gripes aside, it is a very thorough analysis of the thinking of groups and individuals outside of the republican mainstream based on extensive interviews with key players. It also draws some insightful conclusions about the wide range of view and ideas that exist outside the mainstream, and the fact this plethora of groups is partly a function of Sinn Fein’s intolerance of alternative views. The interviewees often seem blind to the fact they are perpetuating the same narrow-mindedness. Or just how much of their testimony is reminiscent of the Life of Brian’s ‘People’s Front of Judea’ scenes (Splitters!).

Overall I’m not convinced the mainstream-dissident split is the most significant fracture in contemporary republicanism. Certainly, the strands of thinking represented by some of the more cerebral interviewees – Anthony McIntyre and Tommy McKearney for example – is radically different from those of groups like Republican Sinn Fein (RSF), the 32 County Sovereignty Movement (32CSM) or Soaradh. This is not only in their attitudes towards the use of violence, their analysis of the problems and solutions are also radically different.

It’s possible a more pertinent split is between those republicans whose thinking has evolved and developed in some way - even where this is in very different directions – and those that have maintained rigidly fixed positions like RSF, 32CSM and Soaradh. To my mind the slavish adherence to republican dogma (and self-identification as the only true believers etc) indicates ossified mindsets where re-cycling well-worn rhetoric is rather more important than either progressing the rights of nationalist people in the north or developing any pragmatic strategy that could lay a path towards reunification. They have prioritised gaining republican brownie points over any kind of progress.

Within this the dogged insistence of many radical republicans of framing the issue as one of British ‘occupation’ plays a pivotal role in oversimplifying both the problem (British colonialism) and the solution (British withdrawal). Crucially it avoids radical republicans having to face the awkward reality of around 1m of their neighbours who do not wish to join their idea of a republic and are unwilling to be forced to at gunpoint. This was the root of unionist rejection of home rule in the early 20^th Century (along with the original threat of armed resistance to it) and remains the root of the problem now.

No less importantly, the 'occupation' framing allows radical republicans to avoid the other awkward reality that whilst the Irish Republic may be emotionally in favour of reunification, the reality would be far more problematic and fraught with complexity, risk and cost.

The 1916 proclamation implied there was an artificial division between republicans and unionist sewn by the dastardly Brits for their nefarious colonial ends. If the Troubles teaches us anything, it is how wrong this conceptualisation is. The desire of unionists to remain both British and Irish is both deeply held and sincere (as Richard English has demonstrated – at least to my satisfaction). 

Recognising this reality was one of John Hume’s greatest contributions, as was selling it to Gerry Adams as the basis of progress across a broad nationalist-republican front.  Ms McGlinchey’s book illustrates that some radical republicans steadfastly refuse to accept this, preferring to cling to comfortable simplicities and ancient dogma instead. They are stuck in an intellectual cul-de-sac from which they show no sign of emerging.