|
As
it has been an ongoing debate from and within various
quarters I would like to touch specifically on the
question of the strategy of the 'dissident Republicans'.
I tend to look at this whole situation and attempt
to understand such a mindset and the continual pursuit
of their aims by armed struggle, knowing how much
they embrace both tradition and principle in respect
to their beliefs. I do this as one who over the years
from my late teens has been sickened by the continual
needless slaughter of innocents, but also now well
aware how such analysis on historical tactics and
strategy holds huge sway for many ‘Republican’
organisations today. One just has to presently look
at Maghaberry prison for instance. So with that understanding
I can see today a perceived strategy based on that
historical tradition and principles, without it I
believe in many cases having any real sense of the
practicalities of present day.
One
just has to look not only at historical Ireland but
similar conflicts elsewhere and see that when the
majority of those once involved in conflict whom then
move into a post conflict situation in the search
for peace, that those minority whom continue down
that path will find little success. This not through
lack of determination or belief but of the objective
conditions in a developing post conflict situation
(where the vast majority are for peace and tired of
war). Given the circumstances of today for example
with the advancement in state technology, the overwhelmingly
support for peace, the obvious infiltration of such
groups, the vast state forces directed against them
and much more, it would be logical as before that
such Republicans look at strategy not based solely
on a particular element of historical tradition.
With
the intensification of state mechanism against them
and more importantly very limited support within a
community at this time it is only logical that one
needs to change tactics and develop a strategy that
can realistically achieve one's aims given present
conditions. This is not to set aside ones principles
and beliefs, but to give positive leadership to tactically
adapting those beliefs to the present while continually
working a strategy on the principle of those aims.
Within
Republicanism it is known by most that armed struggle
is a tactic and not a principle, whether one is for
or against such, it is nevertheless looked upon as
such by many within those organisations. So therefore
various leaderships of those various organisations
wish to attempt ‘at times’ to hold true
to historical tradition and various principles but
to do so, (putting aside whether one believes or not
that they are actually ad hearing to traditional Republican
ideals in the first place) without putting it into
the objective context of the present is madness.
I
read of young persons jailed for many, many years,
their lives all but over, following a historical line
of many others, more innocents killed, more bombs
being made etc, I ask if those ultimate aims could
not be immediately achieved with many more volunteers
and many more supporters with less advanced surveillance,
and that war being fought to a standstill etc, how
then will it be achieved now? I actually believe that
this continual armed struggle by some is being fought
on a basis of principle and such rather than a rational
and concrete thinking through of how to possibly deliver
on their objectives, within the practical context
of the present. Giving leadership is not only about
political lead but practical lead, not only of holding
a tradition or principle but adapting it in a concrete
way with vision. So much blood has already been lost,
so many young lives spent in jail, so many more innocents
maimed and slaughtered, and through it all still many
lessons can be learnt. I believe that such whose mindset
is still directed by the armed struggle should take
a long hard realistic look at their strategy and ask
to date what has it achieved and more importantly
what can it achieve given those conditions.
Much
though has changed and is changing, I see Provisional
Republicanism competing now with mainstream Nationalism
and its now ever embracement for unity of class Nationalism
as opposed to that of Republicanism. I have seen and
read of loyalism and its working class lead up and
down so many hills by Paisley and the likes that it
has made me dizzy, but now with some aspects of loyalism
trying to change ’their communities’ from
being playthings of such persons to now actively helping
develop their communities.
As
one whom is a socialist and seeks a United Ireland
within that belief, looking objectively, I see and
had seen over the years such armed struggle as an
obstruction to and not for the advancement of achieving
a British declaration to withdraw and a united Ireland.
It keeps not only the state militarist mindset but
hardens the bond for the British state to remain,
it holds loyalism on edge, it takes those young activists#
lives whom could partake in a strategy that may deliver
and place them for many years in jail or death, it
slaughters more innocents, it destroys more lives.
Today it also says to the vast majority of the population
including the over whelming majority of Republicans
and Nationalists of this Island that your voices don’t
count. I presume all those who voted yes are for the
peace but that’s not to say all are for this
particular process. Alternatives are always there
(although we are told that there is no alternative
to this centre right governance when up and running,
what about a solid opposition to such a politic, for
example?) but for them to succeed it must seek to
reach out and attempt to include the majority. It
is when tradition and principle become abstract from
the practicalities and objective conditions of the
present that such is doomed to failure.
While
putting these points it is also important to raise
that while I see the continuation of the armed struggle
as both ill thought out and holding little chance
of achieving anything progressive I do believe that
what is going on and being directed and implemented
by the state towards prisoners in Maghaberry is wrong
and that the state is making a huge mistake going
down this route.
Finally,
leadership is about giving that lead, about attempting
to deliver your objectives, about making the right
decisions for those who follow that lead which is
all the more important when lives are at stake. Giving
good leadership is being able to adapt those principles,
beliefs and traditions to the practicalities of today.
It is to look outside a mindset however hard and look
at the concrete situation, it is not to do for do’s
sake but to do what is right with a realistic vision
and strategy that can attempt to deliver for the people,
but, as importantly with the support of the people.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
