Sinn Fein Looks Rightward

Readers will know that Socialism or Barbarism maintains close attention to the dynamics of Sinn Féin - a party that projects itself as committed to a Socialist Republic. However, our view is that the party has entirely collapsed to neo-liberalism and must increasingly move to the right in order to attempt to progress unification without rocking the current economic status quo.

As is usual with such parties and such trajectories, at every step every move to the right and every accommodation to the economic status quo will be justified as necessitous from a revolutionary perspective. One has only to read the history of the PCI in Italy, the PCF in France or the PCE in Spain in the late 1970s and early 1980s to see how such strategies are justified by leadership figures and where they, inexorably, lead.

Recent discussions in the pages of its weekly paper, An Phoblacht, reflect the concerns of activists who want to achieve change but who remain trapped within an organisation which is railed in by a reformist strategy focussed on narrow nationalist objectives. Due to its explicit nature and the profile of its contributors, unlike previous internal polemics, this discussion has received considerable media attention and the ultra-right wing press has used it in an attempt to damage the party.

The latest episode in these discussions was when Toireasa Ferris (daughter of Sinn Féin TD Martin Ferris) openly criticised the party for having an 'identity crisis' and warned of the need to act to prevent it from continuing 'to flounder'.

That such a prominent member - she obtained 65,000 votes and almost won a seat in the South Region in the recent European Parliament elections - is so openly critical reflects the internal difficulties the party is currently going through.
Other Difficulties

A leading councillor, John Dwyer, in Wexford resigned from the party in the aftermath of the election as did prominent councillor and Dail by-election candidate: Christie Burke.

The loss of John Dwyer is significant for the party's left wing. Cllr Dwyer was a leading light in the party's trade union department and known for his trenchant left-wing views. In a demonstration of the right-wing agenda being promoted by the leadership he confessed to both radio and TV journalists that he was told by Gerry Adams to 'stop waving the red flag' in Wexford.

Considering his right-wing beliefs, the loss of Cllr Burke was not so significant from a left-wing perspective as he has always stood to the right of the party in Dublin. Indeed, he defied the party whip to vote for council estimates including privatised service charges although he was later forced to adopt something of a harder line. His leaving also reflects the internal crisis across Sinn Féin.

Sinn Féin's Trajectory

Readers will be aware that Socialism or Barbarism is highly critical of Sinn Féin's recent rightward drift. The party has made it clear that like all other purportedly left-wing parties which have entered into bourgeois state institutions it will continue to play ball by the rules of the game. Their first priority is to be seen as 'responsible'. One has only to think of President Obama who despite winning on the slogan of change, once elected his first decision was to select some of the most right-wing advisers available to him. Students of social democratic history will be able to point to this being a common approach taken by 'reformist' governments.

In Sinn Féin's case, the problem is compounded. Not alone are they anxious to avoid any perception of unruly radicalism but they are forced to work within institutions of governance which by their very working mechanisms will block any radical change. The mutual veto might have seemed a good idea to Sinn Féin negotiators at St Andrew's but the reality is that if you're the one who wants change then a mutual veto will stymie your agenda; that is if you really want such change. Even where they have Ministerial authority to promote radical egalitarian change, Sinn Féin have failed to do so. They will not push left because their agenda is to make the case for Irish unity within the confines of the neo-liberalist order.

Anything else appears to the leadership as a waste of effort. Hence, their comments on 'waving the red flag'. Adopting wholeheartedly the Stalinist strategic concept of the stages of revolution, they are clear that 'labour must wait' for unity.

But that poses a problem. Such narrow politics does not allow for the party to reflect the need for change in the Republic. Without such an attraction, they will continue to sail in the doldrums of political life in the Republic and their representatives will not gain those Ministerial positions upon which the strategic leadership place such importance. The strategy, after all, now rests on getting Sinn Féin Minister's eyeing each other across the table at a North-South Ministerial Council meeting.

So where does that leave the cries of distress of party members in the Republic? Not very far we envisage. But there is one thing in their favour. The party leadership demands results and given the low overall theoretical level within the party it could easily attempt to project such growth on an opportunist politics of opposition without anyone noticing that what the party of protest south of the border opposes what the 'comrades' in Belfast are happily enforcing. And that brings us right to where Toireasa Ferris comes in.

Toireasa's Criticisms

Toireasa criticises the party for not doing well enough. At a time when the "anger of ordinary [sic] citizens was palpable...this should have been our election but wasn’t". So on what does Toireasa blame this outcome?

"The majority of [people]...see us as a Northern-based party, irrelevant to the everyday concerns of people in the 26 Counties". She explains that "voters are unclear about what we stand for" but then goes on to admit that this is not surprising as "many of us are starting to wonder about this also".

She goes on, "we have been trying to appeal to too broad a spectrum of people and as a result have lost touch with our base. For this reason, amongst others, we were seen as neither a credible alternative to the Government nor a party of protest".

While this is all well and true, this misses the central point which is that the party cannot easily present itself as a party of protest when its Ministers in the other jurisdiction are overseeing the closure of hospitals, schools and administering Westminster-directed austerity.

Toireasa offers a prescription for this illness: "we need to get back to the basics of representing people on the ground – and building republicanism from the ground up. Electorally, we need to build the party around councillors who live in the communities they represent and are close to people on the ground. We must return to being community activists, not politicians. By focusing all our energies on winning extra Dáil seats in certain constituencies we have put the cart before the horse."

These appear noble desires but again they miss the point. Toireasa is demanding a return to councillors immersing themselves in constituency work and on the local politics of opposition. For a start, the former is nothing but a substitute for revolutionary action. The powers-that-be have no problems with such politicians. Indeed, they save money on providing state-run advice centres if they can get politicians to spend their time sorting out working class people's drainage, leaking roofs and benefits. Similarly, the politics of localised opposition goes nowhere - it is easy to play such councillors off one another. This comes back to traditional parish-pump politics where the state encourages resource competition between areas. There is nothing here to threaten the basis of the current system.

She makes her agenda even more clear in the following: "abstract talk of ‘Left’ or ‘Right’ is meaningless to ordinary people [Isn't this a classic of revisionism?]. We need to translate the broad terms ‘republicanism’ and ‘socialism’ into a more modern language of ‘decency, of looking out for each other, of a sense of community’ – a language ordinary people understand."

How many times have we heard that the need for socialism needs to be 'updated' only to find out that its essence has been hollowed out in the process? Toireasa states that talk of left or right is meaningless and instead the party should focus its efforts on 'decency', 'looking out for each other' and a 'sense of community'. With such principles in place of socialism, it is a wonder that Ms Ferris has not joined Fine Gael. Such grandiose ideals are not fitting for a party built on the life or death struggle all for the ultimate goal of a socialist republic.

For one thing, Ms Ferris appears to have the benefit of a clear sense of purpose. Her destiny would appear to be to lead the 'ordinary people', as she calls us, to the promised land of a better capitalism - one in which the lower classes are decent, demonstrate social solidarity and there is a robust sense of community.

It is truly shameful that someone who promotes herself as even a social reformist might come out which such clap-trap. There is not an atom of understanding that if there is indecency, it is inherent and stems from a system predicated on ever increasing exploitation where workers are forced to compete to sell their labour power to the highest bidder, where they see the wealthy becoming ever more wealthy and the media project greed as the ultimate good. If people fail to look out for each other it reflects the atomisation promoted by a system of production and distribution rooted in the pitiless anarchy of competition. If there is a lacking of community, it reflects the fact that the few have benefited at the expense of the many. That working class people share nothing but contempt for the wealthy in their villages, towns and cities.

Nowhere is there anything of Connolly remaining within the thoughts of this young woman. It is as if the man never existed. Nothing remains of the class struggle to which he gave his life. This is sadly the way with many within Sinn Féin. Yet the same party is found of painting his image on murals in working class estates across the north. But how many actually read what he actually wrote any more than they read what Guevara wrote on economics.

She completes her ideological turn by pointing to specific issues of concern to her. What, we hear you ask, has she pointed to the massive collapse in the neo-liberalist model that underpinned the Celtic Tiger? Or the party's recent support for the bailout of the banks? Or the party's support of incinerators in the Belfast City council plan?

No. Instead she rails at the party voting to ban "bloodsports" and the "constant ‘rights talk’ by national spokespeople". No doubt, it is clear to her that the party lost votes in Dublin as a result of its softly-softly approach to rabbits and hares. Furthermore, her opposition to the party's remaining commitment to extending the bourgeois rights to social and economic guarantees is also demonstrative of her ever more reactionary right-wing inclinations.

Preparing the Way for a further shift to the right

This article is a sign that the party is about to make a big transition. It will inevitably discover the need to drop any trappings of socialism. Most of those remaining on the left of the party now openly concede their 'social democratic' leanings as if they are something to be proud of. Gone is the revolutionary socialism of Connolly. Unification is the priority and it is best achieved by highlighting the reliance of the northern economy on a bloated public sector subvention.

Unity is to be bourgeois - just like the all-island electricity market, there is to be an all-island bourgeois state predicated on the dominance of the market. Calls from leading activists like Ms Ferris make the case for a more thoroughgoing return to clientelism and opportunism. Given the fact that it does not threaten the leadership's strategy and might even provide them with the ideological basis on which to attain the, purportedly, critical Ministerial seats in the Republic, it might well be adopted by an increasingly desperate leadership.