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.

Book review: Blanketmen by Richard O'Rawe

See Amazon

Richard O'Rawe deserves huge respect for such an honest account of this pivotal episode in Northern Ireland’s ‘Troubles’.  Most of the key players in the republican movement have been neither open nor honest about events that occurred and their role in them.  Perhaps that is to be expected.  It does make this book stand out from the crowd and means the author stands head and shoulders above his comrades for even trying to shed some light. 

Like the best war memoirs, Blanketmen represents the author trying to process the events he participated in; to make some kind of sense of them, to ‘do right’ by his comrades and achieve an accommodation with his conscience.  I’m not sure that process will ever conclude, but it’s a worthy endeavour.

I disagree entirely with O’Rawe’s politics, but it’s possible to relate on a human level to the situation the prisoners found themselves in, the decisions they and others made and the appalling consequences.  Ironically the excessive blokey banter is no different from that you would find in a group of British squaddies, although the Blanketmen strike me as a more diverse and thoughtful group.

It seems fairly clear O’Rawe’s central contention is correct: the hunger striker’s lives were deliberately sacrificed to further a political objective. This needs some context:   PIRA had considerable form for treating the lives of its volunteers – and the public - with callous disregard.  If the hunger strikers were used as cannon fodder by the army council, that was neither new nor out of character.  The IRA themselves didn’t take prisoners, they executed anyone they caught.

More interesting is how much the decision to drag out the strike was made by the army council, and how much was Gerry Adams’ decision alone.  After all, the army council had opposed the hunger strike, and would have contained members deeply hostile to the expansion of political activity, in line with republican orthodoxy.  It is also likely (as the author surmises) that Adams had recognised the limitations of the armed struggle years before and had a long-term project to redirect the republican movement towards politics.  In that context, the hunger strike and the opportunity afforded by Bobby Sands’ election was too good to waste.  It’s at least possible that Adams way playing his own game, manipulating both the army council and the strikers to further his own political agenda.

So were the hunger strikers misled?  Was their struggle for special category status used as a trojan horse for a shift from the Armalite to the ballot box? Perhaps, but the prison campaign was itself a form of proxy war – the armed struggle by other means – so there’s a kind of logic in the longer-term outcome.

Ultimately I have to agree with Professor English in his introduction: that this book’s real value is in the wider insight it provides into the republican movement, the individuals involved, their characters, motivations and relationships, as much as illuminating the events themselves.  For someone who grew up regarding the Provos as the enemy, it’s made them rather more real and a little more comprehensible.

I still think republican ideology is fundamentally wrong-headed and Provo methods execrable.  But you can’t fault the dedication, tenacity and bravery of the Blanketmen and hunger strikers themselves. Whether they knew it or not, their sacrifice helped to move things in the right direction.  It’s a sad inditement of the time, the place and the politics that these men’s effort and talents couldn’t have been better employed.

Richard O’Rawe has done a great service by shining the light of honesty on a very dark chapter.