This is coc tarabh. after 80 years we have a pertitioned country, the PD's in government (shame) and numerous Repulican Parties. Is it not time for us to put our diffrences aside and reunite as one 'Republican Movement'? If we work together we can end partition and the 80 years of senseless squbiling between all us Republicans.
Tiocfaidh ár lá agus mo lá
Our day and my day will come
The problem is that physical force movements, be they left or right wing, tend to appeal to "feelers" rather than "thinkers", tend to be led by individuals with powerful personalities, and tend to made up of people for whom principles are of major importance, people who view minor differences as major issues, and they subsequently involve frequent personality clashes. Splits are especially frequent in left wing movements in particular, as their members tend to be anti-authoritarian in outlook, and feel they should not be required to follow a leadership they disagree with ('the first item on the agenda of any republican group is a split' etc).
Even if your call for republican unity were answered, the new one republican movement would start splitting after a few years.
While I feel Badinage is simplifying things by talking of feelers rather than thinkers (ignoring for instance the fact that the vast majority of the republican movement stuck together behind the SF project, also the strengthening of policy in recent years), he has a point in that splits will always be a potential risk. My view is that groups like RSF, seeing as how they have no alternative of their own, should rejoin SF and give their input. I doubt, however, that will ever happen.
really? The 1922 split - roughly 50/50. The 1926 split was a substantial minority. The 1970 split was either a large minority (if you view OSF as the true SF - which went on to split again creating the INLA), or in fact a majority broke away (if you view PSF as the true SF), then a small minority in 1986, then a small haemorageing to RSF and 32CSM since 1994.Originally Posted by SAOIRSE GO JOE
The true principles of the republican philosophy have been claimed by many. The provisional movement does not subscirbe to true republican principles of 1789 and 1798
I was referring to recent years. Sorry I did not specify that more clearly.really? The 1922 split - roughly 50/50. The 1926 split was a substantial minority. The 1970 split was either a large minority (if you view OSF as the true SF - which went on to split again creating the INLA), or in fact a majority broke away (if you view PSF as the true SF), then a small minority in 1986, then a small haemorageing to RSF and 32CSM since 1994.
As for the old chestnut of Seamus c's about not subscribing to republican principles of 1798 this is nonsensical. A myth often thrown around by anti-shinners. No realistic analysis could back up this claim. People try to claim that the republican movement are religious zealots or something like that. This is untrue. Uniting Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter is a goal of SF. However it must be said that Republicanism has had to develop since 1798. The United Irishmen didn't really deal with socio-economic issues, this was a major shortcoming on their behalf.
[quote=SAOIRSE GO JOE]I was referring to recent years. Sorry I did not specify that more clearly.really? The 1922 split - roughly 50/50. The 1926 split was a substantial minority. The 1970 split was either a large minority (if you view OSF as the true SF - which went on to split again creating the INLA), or in fact a majority broke away (if you view PSF as the true SF), then a small minority in 1986, then a small haemorageing to RSF and 32CSM since 1994.
[/quote:tu905x5y]
You also didn't specify whether you were referring to purely physical force republicanism (though PSF can't be placed in that category anymore) or consitutional-nationalism 'republicanism' (i.e. FF). If you really want all those who want a united Ireland to band together, then everyone joining FF is the obvious choice - everyone complains that FF doesn't want a united Ireland enough, but a merger between PSF and FF (along with all the other republican groups) would push unity to the top of the FF agenda . You may totally dismiss that, but FF isn't detested by Unionists to the extent that PSF is, and so isn't by its very existence an obstacle to unity.
Being a non-republican as you are, i can see why that would make sense to you, but it is unworkable. Even if unity does magically jump to the top of their agenda, social issues would be too much of a problem. Also it is factually incorrect to say that Unionists are not hostile to FF, they view them as part of a pan-nationalist front that they deeply distrust.
Obviously in the long term FF and PSF have differing economic views. However, I thought your whole idea was of republicans of all shades to merge into one party with the primary aim of unity - if you exclude those who don't have socialist economic views, you'd be missing out on a huge chunk of the nationalist electorate - in most societies right-wingers are much more patriotic than left-wingers.
Yes that would be factually incorrect. You'll also note that I didn't say that.
Please explain why not, Seamus. Do you think FF is the "republican party"?
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote