This article was originally written for discussion at the Socialist Party Conference in March 2018, as “Notes on the National Question Today”
On May 3rd, 2021, Northern Ireland will be 100 years old. Partition was an historic defeat for the working-class movement in Ireland and we continue to live with its consequences today.
The workers movement could have prevented partition, and today the workers movement remains the only force in society which can overcome division and point the way to a better future for all.
In order to meet this historic challenge, it is essential that the ideas of Marxism reach the widest possible audience and that we build a politically strong a mass Marxist party in Ireland.
Reaching wide layers of workers, both Catholic and Protestant by background, will only be possible if we apply the ideas of Marxism to the burning issues of the moment. This is particularly the case with regards to the difficult issues which divide working class people along sectarian lines. What can come across as abstract appeals for working class unity, or as correct but vague generalisations, are not enough.
Instead, we must both seek to fully analyse and understand the consciousness and mood of different sections of the working class and engage in detail with each issue around which division crystallises.
Consciousness and Moods
For most Catholics Northern Ireland remains an “artificial entity” in which they were trapped against their will. It represents decades of discrimination, repression, poverty and unemployment. The majority of Catholics have never been reconciled to the existence of Northern Ireland.
For most Protestants the centenary of the Northern Ireland state will be a cause for celebration. In their view partition was necessary to prevent their incorporation into what was then correctly viewed as a backward state dominated by the Catholic Church.
The key to understanding the current situation is to recognise that there has been a fundamental change in the consciousness of both Catholics and Protestants over a relatively short period of time. This is now the most important factor in the situation. For decades the existence of Northern Ireland seemed to be a permanent or semi-permanent arrangement. Now this is no longer so. Now there is a sense that profound change is imminent.
This is because we are widely accepted to be at a demographic tipping point. The built-in Protestant and pro-Union majority is fast becoming a minority. The future of the North is now discussed in a way we have not seen since the early years of the Troubles.
The question of a border poll in the next period is now a point of fractious debate. The power to call a border poll actually rests with the British government, through the person of the NI Secretary of State (SOS). The Good Friday Agreement (GFA) allows for a referendum to change Northern Ireland’s constitutional status at any time. It states that the Secretary of State must call a poll “if at any time it appears likely… that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland”.
How the SOS will determine when a poll ought to be called is not outlined in the GFA, but it is commonly assumed that it will be on the basis of election results. Elections in the North have been largely “sectarian head counts” over the last fifty years. Now all elections have taken on even greater significance than before. Each is a mini-referendum on the very existence of the state.
The most recent Assembly election in March 2017 marked a turning point in the history of Northern Ireland. For the first time since the foundation of the state unionist political parties no longer have a majority at Stormont. The impact this has had, and will have in the period ahead, on the consciousness of both Protestants and Catholics cannot be overstated.
The idea that the union between Britain and the North is secure for the foreseeable future disappeared overnight. Some prominent DUP members have been publically dismissive of this but whatever their true views it is clear that most Protestants are increasingly concerned about the very future of Northern Ireland.
The sense of imminent change has ratcheted up the sense of instability and tension in what was already an unstable and tense society. The vote for Brexit, the first Scottish referendum, and the possibility of a second Scottish referendum in the next few years, have all acted to increase the sense of instability.
What will a border poll bring?
The advocates of a border poll argue that it represents a “democratic” solution to the division of Ireland with all of the problems partition brought in its wake. They also argue that a united Ireland would be a more efficient way in which to administer capitalism than the current arrangements.
In fact a border poll will not provide a “solution” to the national question in Ireland. We have a duty to state that this is the case and to explain what will in fact be the most likely result.
If there was a majority vote for a united Ireland Protestant opposition would not disappear at that point. All the evidence points to the opposite being the case. When a symbol of the union with Britain-the union flag-was taken down from Belfast City Hall in 2012 this alone caused a firestorm. Widespread protests continued for months and had the support of the majority of Protestants. In the run up to a border poll Protestant opposition to a united Ireland would harden. A vote for a united Ireland under capitalism would lead towards conflict, not towards a peaceful future. Such a conflict would most likely take on a mass form, comparable to the 1912 mobilisation against Home Rule. Without the active and concerted intervention of the workers movement there would be a real danger of all-out civil war, and re-partition. The result would be a disaster for all working class people.
Northern Ireland Protestants are opposed to a united Ireland not just because of their fears that they will be accorded second class status in an economically weak all-Ireland state but also because they identify with Britain politically and culturally. The political outlook of most Protestants is strongly in favour of the union with Britain. There are historic reasons for this and the existence of Northern Ireland for nearly a century has solidified this sense of “belonging” to the UK. Arguments in favour of the benefits of a capitalist united Ireland will not change this outlook. Nor will the British government agreeing to play the role of “persuaders” for a united Ireland.
Guarantees of economic prosperity and equal status in a united capitalist Ireland are not believed by Protestants but even in the unlikely event that such promises were widely accepted then political opposition to a united Ireland will continue. This is not a result of Protestants seeking to defend their “privileges”. There are no such privileges to defend. This is especially the case in the most deprived Protestant areas where opposition to a united Ireland is fierce and resolute.
A clear statement that a border poll will not provide a solution does not mean that we ignore the rights of Catholics. For three generations Catholics in Northern Ireland refused to recognise the ‘democracy’ of Northern Ireland. In their view, they had been coerced into an artificial statelet and they would not bow down and accept this situation. They were perfectly justified in this stance.
Whilst most Catholics may accept the current situation, they do so because they see it as a transitional arrangement only, as a stepping stone to a united Ireland. The majority of Catholics do not support the long-term existence of Northern Ireland, even with devolved local government.
It has always been the case that we have had to take into consideration the intense desire for change of Catholics, especially working class Catholics. At times of heightened class struggle this desire for change has been harnessed by the workers movement. When the class struggle diminishes in intensity, and sectarianism comes to the fore, it more takes the form of opposition to the existence of the northern state and in favour of a united Ireland.
The co-existence of these two trends meant that the opposition was often expressed in support for a “socialist united Ireland”, even if this was often an empty phrase. Today, in part because of the perception of the economic success of the Southern state, partly because of the sense that the north has failed, but especially because of the three decades long retreat of the workers movement increasing numbers of Catholics have illusions in a capitalist united Ireland.
A Catholic voting majority in the relatively near future does not mean that a border poll will provide a solution for the problems facing working class Catholics. However the idea that a united Ireland is a real possibility in the years ahead is now seriously posed in the minds of most Catholics. Sections of young working class Catholics already see this as the only way out of the grim situation they face, and will continue to do so unless a class alternative is concretely posed. In the context of economic recession and slump and increasing poverty and unemployment, desperation in Catholic working-class areas could produce a sense that “things couldn’t be any worse” and increasing numbers would demand a vote to remove the border.
It is essential that Marxists recognise the positive side of this intense desire for change and seek to harness the energy and elan of young working class Catholics in a movement for real economic and social change. We are absolutely in favour of profound change, of a revolutionary transformation of society, and not for one second in favour of the continuation of the status quo.
In order to gain the ear of young Catholics we must state this but also point out the truth: a peaceful transition to a united Ireland is an impossibility under capitalism. We have to explain that the idea that one day Protestants will be out-voted and then will go quietly into a capitalist united Ireland is a mirage. It is the road to further conflict, there is no way forward on this basis and socialists have a duty to state that this is the case. We have to go further and explain that if a capitalist united Ireland were achieved it would not solve one of the problems facing young working class Catholics.
It is also the case that there is no solution in holding out for the day when the Catholic working class reconcile themselves to the existence of Northern Ireland. There is no “internal” Northern Ireland solution any more than a capitalist united Ireland is the solution.
Protestants have the right to say no to being coerced into a united Ireland. If this coercion takes the form of a majority vote in the North (50% of the vote plus one) it is still coercion, even if dressed up ‘democratic’ clothing. Catholics have the right to reject the status quo of partition. This leads to difficult questions for Marxists: how do we reconcile what appear to be irreconcilable aspirations, and at the same time drive forward the struggle for socialism.
The way in which we do so is to say to all workers that the only way in which the aspirations of Catholics and of Protestants will be realised is through the struggle for a socialist transformation of society and a solution which recognises the rights of both communities.The day to day struggles of workers against austerity and for a better life will convince more and more that only socialism points the way forward. The struggle for socialism by its very nature brings workers together and breaks down barriers, posing the question for thinking workers as to how best to address the issue of national divisions.
Marxism and the National Question
The goal of the Socialist Party and the CWI is a world free from economic exploitation and all forms of oppression, including the oppression of all nations and communities. We fight for a future World Socialist Federation, that is, a federation of independent socialist states, which come together freely and without coercion. Within a World Socialist Federation no state will dominate any other.
The founders of scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, first and foremost sought to understand and to explain the mechanism by which the capitalist class extracts surplus value from the labour of working class people. They of course went beyond a basic understanding of the capitalist mode of production and explored the various phenomena which have arisen as a result of the development of the capitalist system.
One such phenomenon has been the rise of the modern nation state, which began in the aftermath of the French Revolution, and which was an unfolding process in the era in which they lived. They found it necessary to study and understand the process by which nations come into being, and the ways in which the ideology of nationalism attracts the mass support of layers of the working class in specific circumstances.
At the time of Marx and Engels the two countries where the question of national oppression, and the rise of nationalism as a political movement, were most to the fore were Poland and Ireland. It is thus the case that much of their writings on the national question specifically focus on the centuries old domination of Ireland by England.
Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky recognised that there are two sides to nationalism: the nationalism of the oppressor and the nationalism of the oppressed. In Trotsky’s famous words the nationalism of the oppressed is sometimes an expression of class anger- “only the outer shell of an immature Bolshevism”. In recognition of this Trotsky explained “the national struggle cannot be suspended by bare reference to the future world revolution”.
Over a period of decades there was intense debate in the international workers movement on the national question. In the late 19th century and the years before WW1, the leading Marxists developed the formulation of the right to self-determination for oppressed nations.
For Marxists the formulation of the right to self-determination is not an end in itself but is designed to separate workers and other oppressed layers from political nationalism.
Lenin and Trotsky always argued that the slogan of self-determination should not be applied in a formalistic and rigid manner. In particular it should never be used in a way which far from separating workers from political nationalism, actually works to bolster nationalism, and national divisions.
At no time is it permissible to put forward the slogan of the right to self-determination without raising the class composition of national political movements and in particular the class character of those who lead such movements.
In Lenin’s words the right to self-determination must always be “subordinated to the interests of the class struggle”. To baldly state that this was the case however is seldom a useful way in which to reach out to layers influenced by nationalist ideas. He adopted a nuanced approach to the consciousness of the masses and in particular, the consciousness of the working class. Lenin and the Bolsheviks sought to connect with the genuine national grievances of the masses without ever giving succour to national chauvinism or offering political support to nationalist ideas or nationalist forces.
The Role of “Negative” Demands
In Ireland we have taken great care to take such a nuanced approach which in the Marxist tradition often takes the form of a series of “negative” demands on the national question. Negative demands take the form of demands which formulate opposition to national oppression, or the coercion of any nation or community. It may take the form of specific opposition to any denial of rights, including cultural and language rights.
The Socialist Party has essentially adopted this approach over its entire existence, putting forward what are best understood as negative demands, explaining our opposition to all forms of national oppression: we have resolutely opposed state repression; opposed the coercion of both the Catholic and the Protestant community; and opposed the denial of individual rights and the collective rights of either community.
It is also necessary to put forward positive slogans and demands which point the way forward for the working class. There are many different examples from history, and from the current situation, when Marxists have put forward the slogan of the right to self-determination as a way in which to reach out to wide layers of the oppressed. This has been a very successful approach in many contexts and remains a key weapon of Marxism today in, for example Scotland and Catalonia.
We do not put forward the slogan of “the right of self-determination of the Irish people” however, because such a slogan takes no account of the complexities of the national question in Ireland. Posed in this way, it effectively ignores the rights of the Protestant community.
Such a slogan does not advance the class struggle in any way and acts as an impediment to educating and convincing both Catholic and Protestant workers that the struggle for socialism provides the way forward. It is an impediment because the implication of this slogan is that there is “one nation” in Ireland, that this is an historically oppressed nation with the right to self-determination, and that Protestants have no right to “stand in the way” of the realisation of “Irish self-determination”.
Instead from the first days of our Party in the early 1970s our basic position was for a socialist united Ireland, but this was explained carefully, and the rights of minorities within a future socialist united Ireland were always clearly explained.
How we presented this position in slogan form changed over time. As we explained previously: “The purpose of slogans and of language generally is to explain and clarify. When a slogan no longer does this it is time to find a better form of words to express the same idea. The first issues of the Irish Militant, published in 1972, carried a sub-heading ‘For a socialist united Ireland’. Even at this early stage of the Troubles things had already moved so far back that this proved a barrier rather than a bridge to important sections of the working class. We quite quickly replaced it with the more finely tuned slogan ‘For workers’ unity and socialism’. The original idea was retained as the position of the organisation but was presented less in headline fashion, more through careful explanation” (Troubled Times, pp 106-107).
In the following years we put forward “…. the alternative formulation ‘for a socialist Ireland and a socialist federation of Britain and Ireland’”. In 1995 we agreed that “This remains the best way of presenting our ideas. The slogan is sufficiently open not to lead to mistaken interpretations, it is sufficiently removed from republican formulations not to immediately trigger Protestant sensitivities. It emphasises the need for socialism before it raises the specific nature of a socialist state in Ireland. Thus it points to the need to change society, not just remove a line from the map” (Troubled Times, pp 130-131).
Partition and Division
We have always paid close attention to the many manifestations of the national question and have been keenly aware of the need to re-consider our approach and our slogans as conditions change.
By the early 1990s it was clear that there was a need to consider the impact of twenty-five years of violence and upheaval and whether this meant that there was a need for change in our positions, or the formulation of our positions.
A key document, Troubled Times (1995), resulted from a thorough discussion throughout the Party in 1993-1994, and was democratically adopted at out 1994 conference.
Troubled Times explained “Demands on the national question must be related to actual circumstances and to the consciousness of various layers, particularly of the working class. And as neither conditions nor consciousness are fixed or static but are constantly changing, so demands need to be re-evaluated, fine-tuned and altered. What was correct twenty five years ago at the dawn of the Northern Ireland Troubles may no longer be appropriate in the changed situation brought about by twenty five years of sectarian violence”.
Troubled Times explored changes resulting from developments over the previous twenty-five years. We examined the extent to which the working class were divided in the North, and the impact of the separate development of the Northern and Southern states since partition. We concluded: “Partition meant that a single nation state was not built and could not be built on the basis of capitalism. There were two states but still only one nation, albeit that within this nation there were pronounced differences, aggravated by history between North and South and between Catholic and Protestant. Further it set in motion tendencies and counter tendencies each drawing society in an opposite direction. Were the tendency to division to dominate over a period the likely result would be two nations. But this qualitative transformation would only be possible on the back of big events and would be a change which would not come about unnoticed”.
It would be a mistake if in seeking out evidence for a “qualitative transformation” change we downplayed the long-term negative processes which have characterised the period since 1995. Qualitative change is preceded by quantitative change-to make a simple analogy, water boils only after it has been heated to boiling point over a period of time. When water boils it does so suddenly and seemingly without warning, all the accumulated energy of the heating process expressed in qualitative change.
Over the period of the peace process there has been no coming together or reconciliation between opposing forces. Instead the conflict has continued by other means-in a war of attrition over territory and a war of words over the past. At times accumulated tensions have exploded, sometimes without any warning-the parades crisis in the late 1990s and the flags protests being the best examples-and society has tipped towards conflict before drawing back.
The more than two decades that have passed since the publication of Troubled Times have seen a both a reinforcement of division between the two communities in the North, and a further weakening of the organised workers movement in Ireland and internationally. We have witnessed twenty years of a low level of class struggle during which the trade union leadership has abdicated its responsibilities. For four decades there has been no mass, independent class-based party providing even a semblance of political representation for working people in the North.
Developments since the publication of Troubled Times have been in the main negative and have further divided the two communities. We have seen hugely significant, and extremely dangerous, quantitative change in the direction of more sharply defined communities.
Nevertheless, it is still a fact that no strike in Northern Ireland has ever been broken by sectarianism. Workers remain united in their workplaces, sharing the same conditions, facing the same attacks, and organised in the same unions. The trade union movement remains organised on an all-Ireland basis, and importantly have strong links with the trade union movements in Scotland, England and Wales. The one force which binds society together and which could propel society forward, the workers movement, remains intact but has not yet stirred into action. When it does it will transform the situation, and that is the day we struggle for.
There is real division on the ground in that a majority of Catholic workers and a majority of Protestant workers live in areas where they are in a majority, but there is a shared consciousness around class issues. Workers recognise that they face the same programme of austerity.
The conclusion we draw at this time is that there not two nations in Ireland. There is however a Protestant community with a different identity and different aspirations.
It is necessary however to repeat the warning of Troubled Times of “tendencies and counter tendencies each drawing society in an opposite direction. Were the tendency to division to dominate over a period the likely result would be two nations”. The working class movement has an historic responsibility to counter these tendencies, to draw together working class people in struggle, and to establish a socialist society in which national tensions and divisions are overcome. In order to do so it is essential seek the support of all sections of the working class. This is only possible if careful attention is paid to the aspirations of all working class people.
The Right to “Opt Out”
Thus in Troubled Times whist we stated clearly that “…a single socialist state is our preferred option. Any other alternative raises the prospect of an ongoing division between the working class. To Catholics, North and South, the idea that we tear down every aspect of capitalist rule, but leave the border, would seem both absurd and unacceptable…..To Protestants we argue the case for one state – with strong links with the working class in Britain”, we also went on to state “given the entirely legitimate fears of Protestant workers that a united Ireland in any form equals coercion, we have to be able to provide an assurance to the contrary”.
The further solidifying of differences between the two communities since 1995 reinforces our standing position of opposition to any form of coercion-rights do not just to apply to nations but also to defined communities.
We rejected any form of coercion in Troubled Times: “By opposing a capitalist united Ireland we have stood against the forcible coercion of Protestants. Now we need to add the firm guarantee that there would be no element of coercion on a socialist basis either”. For
There can be no question of the coercion of any community under genuine socialism, which by its very nature-socialism is a higher form of democracy- would allow for a democratic and peaceful resolution of the national problem. In the transition to socialism working class people will decide their own future. The struggle for socialism will only be successful in the context of a coming together of working people. Developing and deepening unity will overcome tensions and suspicions, divisions will diminish and in time disappear. An absolutely clear position of opposition to coercion of any community will hasten this process.
Opposition to coercion cannot be a mere form of words, but must be explained in concrete terms. Put plainly, if the majority of Protestants firmly oppose being part of a unitary socialist Ireland, then we would support arrangements, wherever Protestants are in a majority, which allow for maximum local powers and control over their own affairs. Should the demand be made, we must allow for a separate socialist state based on where Protestants are in a majority.
Thus, the possibility of two socialist states in Ireland must to be put forward as a democratic option in order to create the possibility of a socialist transformation of society. In the eventuality that two socialist states were established there would be full minority rights within each state, maximum links between the two states, and we would argue for a voluntary federation as a step to a possible unified state in time.
If we accept the possibility of two socialist states then we must consider the potential complications which may arise. In this context it is also important to state that we are opposed to large numbers of Catholics being co-opted into any a new political arrangement against their will.
In Troubled Times we stated that “we will always accord this right to Protestants, but it may not always be necessary to raise it. ….For now we do not need to present the right to opt out in our list of demands. Rather it is for use when we set about more fully explaining our programme, verbally or in more lengthy written material”.
A more careful and patient explanation of our position is already necessary. In the context of an imminent border poll our position on the “right to opt out” will necessarily come more to the fore-this is already the case and will become more so in the coming months and years. It is now necessary to explain our position more regularly, more methodically, in discussions, and in written material. This applies in the main to longer more developed articles but also to shorter articles in the paper when relevant. The “right to opt out” may need to feature in some of our leaflets when a particular intervention requires that we include it specifically-the issue we are intervening on and the likely audience are both important considerations when deciding on this. It is also necessary now to raise the rights of the Protestant community, when appropriate, we reach a mass audience through the media. It is important that we raise these difficult issues to in the unions, and mass organisations which unite working class people.
It is essential of course that we simultaneously raise the rights of Catholics, including their right to reject the status quo. It is difficult, but essential that we maintain a balanced and independent class position at all times. We should explain the nature of the impact of capitalism on the day to day lives of workers – there lot is one of austerity and sectarian division. The only way out is to join together in united struggle. The only way to move forward on the economic, social and political issues facing working class people is by fighting for a real and urgent vision for change.
New Issues, New Challenges
Maintaining an independent class-based position is difficult and challenging as new issues arise on a continuous basis which require a response.
One such issue is the question of Joint Authority (JA)-under which the British government and the Irish government would jointly make decisions on policy and programme for Northern Ireland-which has been pushed heavily by Sinn Fein and the SDLP recently. The Irish government has been less robust in its language but has stated repeatedly that simple direct rule is “not on”. JA is a very attractive option for most Catholics, and complete anathema for most Protestants.
The GFA allows for a form of what is sometimes called “Joint Stewardship”, under which the Southern government comments and advises on the North, but ultimately has no say on policy or programme. This limited power is exercised through regular meetings of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference (BICC). This body met 16 times when devolution was suspended between 2002 and 2007. This body is not usually convened unless devolution is formally suspended, which is not the case at present. It has not met since 2007.
The working so of the BICC are tolerated by most Protestants. It can be dismissed as a “talking shop”. Any move toward a developed form of JA would be very different however. It would provoke a firestorm of opposition from Protestants. This opposition would most likely be akin to the mass opposition seen in the aftermath of the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement.
We sound the same warnings about any moves to establish JA for the same reasons why we warn about any moves in the direction of a capitalist united Ireland. Such a move would increase tension and risk conflict on the streets. It does not represent an interim or a final solution to division and conflict and it is our duty to point this out to Catholics who have illusions that it does.
Recently there has been some debate on the question of residents of Northern Ireland being given the right to vote in Presidential elections. The extension of voting rights in this manner will almost certainly result from a forthcoming referendum in the South, but will not be applied until after the next Presidential election. Most voters in the South will probably consider this to be a straightforward issue of increased democracy, and of an acceptance of the Irish identity of northern Catholics.
The question of votes in Dail elections being extended to those who live in the North has also been aired but there is no clamour for this demand in the South. Most workers in the South recognise the difficulties it would bring-allowing those who live outside the state to decide on the colouration of a government which decides on issues such as spending on health and education, for example. This is not an urgent issue at present but if it were to become so we would take a stand against, for reasons of democratic accountability and of the entirely negative impact there would be on the divisions in the North.
At present the issue of Presidential elections has gained little traction in the North but it is clear that the vast majority of Catholics would wholeheartedly welcome such a move to extend their ‘rights as Irish citizens’. Most Protestants (if they think about it at all) are not opposed to such a development at this time, and do not see it as a threat.
We do not advocate the extension of Presidential voting rights to the North. We have a duty to point out the difficulties and dangers inherent in this possible development.
The position of President is not without power, and has major symbolic importance. Mary Robinson’s tenure clearly had an impact on Irish society, and her election was seen as a staging post in the modernisation of Ireland. The election of Mary McAleese, a Northern Catholic, to the position was seen as a minor victory by northern Catholics, and as part of their “journey” to full acceptance by the South of their Irish identity. Sinn Fein ran Martin McGuinness for the position of President recognising that it would gain from even an unsuccessful stand.
In the first election under the new franchise there would be a mass turnout by Northern Catholics, with all of the paraphernalia of any election- posters, cavalcades, rallies and meetings. Votes could be cast by postal voting but there would be a clamour for physical polling stations begging the question of where these would be located.
Protestants would react against all of this in their midst. Catholics would react in turn. It seems certain that in the near future there will be a major push to elect a Sinn Fein candidate, or perhaps more likely, a non-Sinn Fein Northern Catholic nationalist as President. If a Northern nationalist was elected, and clearly as a result of northern Catholic votes, this would pose difficulties. Immediately the right to vote in Dail elections would be demanded and the whole issue would add to the spiral downwards to conflict.
Another new “constitutional” issue which we have a duty to address is the out-workings of the vote to leave the EU. The question of the status of the border after Brexit is highly contentious. It is an issue which contributes to sectarian polarization.
The border still exists in reality of course. Nevertheless it has disappeared in the sense of an everyday impediment, and this has had an impact on the consciousness of Catholics over the last twenty years.
Paradoxically the disappearance of the border as a physical barrier has been one factor in allowing many Catholics to become more reconciled to the existence of the Northern Ireland state-that is, to the reality of the border.
The possibility of the hardening of the border is now having the opposite effect, and is contributing to the rapid stripping away of the acceptance of no change in Northern Ireland’s status which Catholics largely acquiesced too for a period after the GFA.
Protestants are entirely content with the current situation and recognise the benefits of the absence of a physical border. They would prefer no hardening of the border in the future too, but could live with it if it happens. On the other hand they are absolutely opposed to anything which suggests the creation of an East-west border down the Irish Sea.
In contrast whilst Catholics are content with the current situation whereby there is no barrier to movement between the island of Ireland and GB, and would prefer no change in this arrangement, they could live with the creation of an East-West border. They would overwhelmingly prefer this option to any hardening of the border between North and South. A minority would probably welcome an East-West border and indeed whatever they might say that is Sinn Fein’s preference.
Either option will have an entirely negative impact on the unity of the working class. We oppose both options. The unity of working class people is our over-riding priority at all times and we oppose any moves which tend to weaken that unity.
Borders are not created by or for the working class. Such administrative arrangements are created to meet the needs of the ruling class.
It is not for the workers movement to come forward with solutions which address the concerns of the ruling class. The workers movement must put down markers however: it must oppose any new arrangements which are detrimental to the needs of working class people. Trade unions must defend the economic interests of the working class in Ireland North and South, and in Britain. We oppose any “race to the bottom” with regards to workers’ rights or standards (of food production, for example).
Language and Culture
Divisions around the national question often take the form of clashes on what might seem to be secondary issues. It is the duty of socialists to engage with the very real problems thrown up by the national question every day and to put forward concrete positions and proposals on these issues.
Each of these secondary issues is essentially connected to the identity and aspirations of each community. If the particular aspiration of one community is met in full the other community may conceive this as a loss of its identity or a blow to its aspirations. Each becomes a microcosm of the overall conflict.
It is important that we oppose both the denial of rights, but also the promotion of rights in a way which is one sided and is designed to increase division. Examples of issues in which there are rights on both sides are contentious parades, the flying of flags in public places, and the use of language.
Twenty years ago the Socialist Party pioneered an approach on the issue of contentious parades which focused on recognising the rights of each community, but also on the over-arching right of the working class as a whole not to be dragged into conflict. At the height of the conflict around the Drumcree parade in the mid-1990s our voice was isolated. Nevertheless, we took our arguments to the eye of the storm, speaking to groups on the Garvaghy Road in Portadown and the Bogside in Derry. Over time the approach we advocated became widely accepted.
Our position on the many other secondary issues is to take a similar approach. We recognise that each community has rights but so too does the working class as a whole. Every issue must be approached from this standpoint.
The rights that ought to be accorded to Irish language has become a sharply contentious issue in the recent period. Starkly opposed views have been put forward, and the issue has become the key stumbling block preventing the return of the Executive.
Catholics in the North have always had a strong affinity with the Irish language. For most this went no further than a nostalgic attachment, though a minority have sought to create new Gaeltacht areas, and in particular to establish Irish language schools. Most Catholics have been supportive of these efforts.
The rights of Irish language speakers featured in the GFA but not dealt with in detail. It was more central to the St Andrews Agreement but Sinn Fein and the DUP disagree vehemently over just what was agreed or not agreed. In the recent period the issue has come much more to the fore as Sinn Fein has consciously propelled it to the centre of its “rights” agenda.
Sinn Fein’s increasingly strident approach has gained support in the Catholic community precisely because of the reaction of unionist politicians such as Gregory Campbell. Campbell’s derogatory and sectarian comments have reminded Catholics of their second-class status under 50 years of Unionist Party rule, and centuries of repression under British imperialism, including the oppression of the Irish language. Thus the specific demand for a stand-alone Irish Language Act has taken on significance far beyond what it would actually mean to the day to day life of most Catholics.
Historically most Protestants did not identify strongly with the Irish language, but nor did they oppose its protection and, in certain circumstances, its promotion. Now however, the way in which the issue has been amplified by Sinn Fein and some language activist has caused widespread concern and outright opposition to a standalone ILA. They fear anything which “hollows out British culture”-such as an Act which would invite legal challenges and over time give Irish speakers a greater chance of a job in the public sector than non-Irish speakers. The idea that Irish language street signs would appear everywhere, even without local support (local support is necessary for bi-lingual signs) angered many Protestants.
Protestants are in general open to the idea of general legislation which covers both Irish and Ulster-Scots, and perhaps other aspects of culture. Catholics would have accepted general legislation in the past but now in favour of stand-alone legislation.
Thus the issue has become entirely focused around the issue of a separate Irish Language Act (ILA). A standalone Act as such is not absolutely necessary to protect the rights of Irish language speakers but it would bring a sense of solidity and permanence to such rights which Catholics see as just and reasonable.
An Act which is framed in such a way as to suggest, even indirectly in the sense of rights which would ultimately be upheld in court, that one language is more important than others, invites opposition from Protestants. In contrast, most Catholics do see Irish as of particular importance as it is the language of Ireland and has been historically suppressed.
This is the Gordian knot which the sectarian parties are struggling to untie, though the recent talks perhaps came close to a resolution by proposing a standalone Act would be quickly subsumed by a general cultural Act.
Under socialism all languages would be protected and promoted. Languages are the cultural inheritance of all of humanity, to be valued and celebrated. Everyone has the right to speak and use whatever language they choose in their daily lives. We uphold this right in all circumstances. This specifically applies to Irish and Ulster-Scots in the context of Northern Ireland.
We support the right of Irish speakers to use Irish and we support an approach which extends the circumstances in which this is possible rapidly. The state has a duty to extend this right-through the provision of translation services, for example. This also applies to Ulster-Scots. One area in which this is a particularly sharp issue is in the courts, where Irish is still banned under a remnant of the Penal Laws, and this must be reversed immediately.
We do not support any measure which diminishes the rights of others. The implementation of legislation which opens up the public sector to Irish speakers must not be constructed in such a way as to discriminate against non-Irish speakers. At this point in time bi-lingual street signs should only be erected where there is local support.
Whether we support a stand-alone ILA or general language or cultural legislation will depend on its form and content.
No Solution Possible Under Capitalism
The result of twenty years of the “Peace Process” is that Sinn Féin and the DUP have been the most successful of the sectarian parties. They have eclipsed their rivals and become the dominant representatives of the Catholic and Protestant communities respectively, gaining ground not by being prepared to compromise but by taking hard-line positions on the key issues which divide the communities. The absence of an alternative has been an important factor in allowing the sectarian parties to build this base.
Until now the process was (at least in words) a series of negotiations and deals predicated on the continuity of the North in the United Kingdom, but with much more recognition of the aspirations and needs of the minority, Catholic community.
Now the widespread sense of that the current constitutional arrangement is impermanent has changed politics in an absolutely fundamental way. The peace process has entered a new phase.
The lack of a real, anti-sectarian alternative allows the sectarian parties to maintain their gains. In the absence of a serious and real alternative many working class people will vote for the force that will be the strongest defender of “their” community in the context of a war of attrition.
The impasse of the peace process has only reinforced the validity of the conclusion of the serious capitalist journal, The Economist in the 1980s, when it described Northern Ireland “a problem without a solution”. The current impasse of capitalism on a global scale, unable as it is to deliver a better life for working people anywhere, is worsening an already parlous situation.
Each community has national aspirations which cannot be ignored. For the Catholic working-class the entity of Northern Ireland imprisoned them against their will in a state where they were second-class citizens. They experienced decades of poverty and repression, and whist this was more acute in the past, it remains their present reality too.
The Protestant working-class have a sense of being a beleaguered and ignored minority on the island of Ireland. Today their lot is one of unemployment or badly paid and insecure jobs. They fear for their future if a capitalist united Ireland comes to pass.
Repeated “agreements” to deal with any of the fundamental problems in Northern Ireland have failed because the sectarian parties are not capable of agreement on issues such as flags, parades and the past, precisely because the parties base themselves on sectarian division.
There is no solution within the framework of capitalism but this does not mean that we conclude that there is no way forward. In fact there is a solution to the seemingly intractable problems arising from the clash of national aspirations in Ireland.
Our position is that the only class which is capable of “solving the national question” in Ireland is the working class and that a solution can only be found through the struggle for a socialist society.
The only way in which the aspirations of both Catholics and Protestants can be realised, and their fears overcome, is through the struggle for a socialist transformation of society. The struggle for socialism grows from material conditions, the real lives of working people. Poverty, uncertainty and hopelessness are endemic within the capitalist system, and are being accentuated every day by the crisis of the system. The struggle for socialism, the fight for a better life, can only be carried through in unity. It brings working class people together. In their common misery, they engage in common struggle.
Socialism can bring a solution which recognises the rights of both communities. The starting point of our programme is outlined in Troubled Times: “the need for unity of the working class in the North, between North and South and with the British working class also. This means preserving and developing trade union unity. It means a programme for the democratisation of the trade unions and for the building of links, top and bottom, between the unions in both parts of Ireland and in Britain. Side by side with the task of building political organisations of the working class goes the need to also link them together as far as is possible”.
It is absolutely vital that the working movement counters the ongoing process of deepening sectarian division. In order to do so the workers movement at all times must be forward only positions that tend to increase the unity of working class people. We must strive to protect and develop a shared working class consciousness. This is a conscious struggle, a product of over a century of shared conditions, shared history and shared struggle.
We recognise that each community has rights which must be taken into consideration and respected. Any form of coercion, that is forcing either community into an arrangement against its will, is impermissible. Genuine equality of the two communities means the acceptance that each has genuine aspirations and the rights of each must be respected.
Socialists must become the foremost advocates of the rights of all communities, precisely to overcome the sense that the rights of either community is being denied. This must be linked to a resolute and firm focus on the over-riding importance of building workers unity in Northern Ireland, across the island of Ireland, and with working class people in Scotland, Wales and England.
The struggle for socialism is, by definition, a united struggle and that in itself points a way to a solution. When they engage in united struggles on class issues workers and young people come to realise that they have more in common than divides them. This applies within Northern Ireland, across the border, and across these islands.
We are in favour of socialism in Ireland. In the struggle for socialism the coming together of working class communities and the breaking down of barriers is to be expected, not the opposite. It is likely, even probable, that all political boundaries will have a very temporary character, as a process of coming together under socialism unfolds. This applies to relationships across these islands, as well as on the island of Ireland.
We are in favour of strong links with the working class of Scotland, Wales and England. It is an absolute imperative of the workers’ movement that we build unity across all national boundaries, including between the working classes of a historically oppressed nation and the oppressor nation. For this reason the Socialist Party in Ireland has always raised the idea of unity in common struggle across these islands. That we do so has been and is important in reaching out to Protestant workers.
Socialists fight for the rights of new minorities in Ireland-migrants and refugees- and are fiercely opposed to racism. Under socialism the rights of such minorities will be safeguarded.
We are in favour of the maximum unity of working people, breaking down all boundaries when and where possible. We are in favour of a unitary socialist Ireland with maximum guarantees for the Protestant minority. This is our preferred option, but we go further and allow for two socialist states in Ireland if this is the way in which the democratic will of working people is expressed. We are also favour of a voluntary and equal socialist federation of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. We go beyond this, and are engaged with international co-thinkers in a struggle for a Socialist United States of Europe and for a Socialist World.
A new situation will allow the Party to make an increasing impact on events through interventions on aspects of the national question. In order to realise that possibility the Party needs to have focused approach: challenging the sectarian parties, struggling for a new mass working class party and transforming the unions.