16.09.1999

Self-determination and Ireland

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group argues against self-determination for the British-Irish

Jack Conrad argues that a united Ireland should have a federal structure. Alongside the central parliament for the whole united state, there should be local parliaments for one or more regions. I have no objection in principle to this. Indeed I argued the case for a federal united Ireland in 1981 in a debate in the SWP.

The Marxist theory of democracy is clear that federalism is less democratic than centralism. We advocate it only as an exception. A united centralised Ireland with one central parliament is generally preferable. However, the existence of the national question provides reasons to consider a federal exception as the best way forward for the Irish working class. A federal constitution for a united Ireland would or should guarantee the same democratic rights and civil liberties to all Irish citizens regardless of religion, culture or ethnic origins. At the same time it would allow local variations in laws in the different regional political units and a degree of local autonomy.

A united Ireland means the end of British-Irishness. Federalism is a concession to the ex-British-Irish, who may form a majority in the north-eastern part of the federation. It is a peace offering by victorious republicanism to defeated loyalism. A defeated army or one facing inevitable defeat may be partially won over if they are treated fairly by the victors and not massacred or humiliated.

In reality loyalism is far from defeated. An undefeated army will not surrender merely because their enemies promise there will be no revenge. We would be fooling ourselves if we thought that the offer of a federal Ireland would cause the loyalists to throw down their weapons and surrender, rather than laugh in our faces. Only at the moment of their impending defeat will the question of federalism become real politics for the British-Irish. Therefore federalism is not the programmatic holy grail that will cause the British-Irish to support a united Ireland.

The role of federalism is different. It is about creating the best conditions for the political reunification of the Irish working class - catholic, protestant, atheist, etc - in a newly uniting Ireland. It is the road that could enable a relatively ‘peaceful’ development of the Irish revolution and realignment of class-political forces in Ireland.

Federalism could only play this transitional role for a temporary period. It is a type of transitional relief. It is not possible to predict in advance how long such a transitional period should or would exist. It would depend on the balance of class forces. If the Irish working class was strongly organised, federalism would soon be overcome. If not it might linger. But clearly Marxism teaches that at some point federalism would become a barrier to further political and democratic unification of the Irish working class. In a united Ireland communists would continue to fight for greater democracy and begin to argue for the replacement of federalism (as in modern Australia) with democratic centralism.

It may be an irony of history that the only way that the British-Irish can gain a real measure of self-government and autonomy is in a federal, secular Irish republic. Certainly restoration of self-government in the British union is proving very problematic. The loyalists want a Stormont-style orange parliament supported by an orange state. This is not possible because the balance of political forces is against it. First is the strength of the IRA and Sinn Féin. Then there is the politics of the SDLP, the Irish government, and the Irish-American lobby.

More importantly, Anglo-US imperialism is against it. Blair and Clinton are backing a reformed unionism based on a bipartisan state. Political power sharing, and a reformed police force and civil service, could win the support of catholics. It is an equal rights agenda. This is totally unacceptable to the British-Irish who believe an orange state is their democratic birthright. The reason Trimble and the Ulster Unionists are going along with Anglo-US plan is because it might demobilise, demilitarise, divide and eventually defeat the IRA. Then of course the bipartisan state can again show its true orange colours.

The old Stormont-style orange parliament is not on the agenda. The Good Friday agreement promises a power-sharing parliament. But in practice this option has proved so far to be a mirage. The British-Irish demand the surrender of the IRA as a precondition. The nationalist population understand that the IRA is the only thing that stands between them and a return to old-style sectarian rule. Whilst this remains true, the real choice may be between continued direct rule from Britain or a federal united Ireland.

Between these two, economic trends will decide. The economic basis for unionism has ended. Both parts of Ireland are part of the integrating economy of the European Union. Capital in the Irish Republic has been able to take greatest advantage from membership. The Irish ‘tiger’ economy seems to offer more opportunity for Irish capitalists than clinging to handouts from a cost-cutting British treasury. A single currency, together with the abolition of all EU borders and trade barriers, points in the same direction. The link with Britain now holds the north back.

Historically therefore British-Irish unionism is finished. The only question is whether it is quickly buried, or whether its rotting corpse will continue to pollute the Irish working class and create ever more pain and tragedy. Obsolete political arrangements can continue for decades or even centuries. This is why we stand for the immediate abolition of the union, British withdrawal and a united Ireland and not some drawn-out, transitional stages. It is why we opposed and still oppose the Good Friday agreement, which is no more than an attempt to delay the inevitable. It is an attempt that may prove costly in terms of human suffering.

However, it is necessary to separate the question of federalism from that of self-determination. In my opinion Jack opens up a can of worms when he links the two together. I think it was very sensible that the CPGB did not vote on this question at their recent aggregate. It would have been premature to make such a decision without working out more fully the political ramifications.

The constitutions of some federal republics do not contain the right to self-determination. The US and German constitutions, for example, are identified as one nation. A multinational federal republic (eg, England, Scotland and Wales) or the former USSR on the other hand must contain the right to self-determination and a democratic means of exercising that right. An Irish federal republic is the former, not the latter type. Ireland is one nation, divided by politics, religion, and culture, partitioned by force in 1922. Consequently Irish communists must oppose any clause in the constitution of a united federal Ireland for self-determination for the British-Irish. On this point I agree with the arguments of Steve Riley (Weekly Worker September 2).

The question of self-determination raises many important points. The first of these is the distinction between consistent democracy on the one hand and liberalism and anarchism on the other. Jack is taking the imperative of consistent democracy. He is quite right to do so. He is quite right to point to the inconsistency in opponents who fail to understand that the non-existence of workers’ democracy in the former USSR is not merely an unfortunate oversight, but negates socialism. Not with slavery of course, but wage slavery. Try working eight hours a day for seven roubles an hour plus piece work bonuses, in the ‘Lenin No 2 Machine Tool’ factory!

Consistent revolutionary democrats look at the Irish and Soviet questions through the same pair of Marxist spectacles, albeit in very different historical circumstances. However, Jack’s claim to have a position on self-determination derived from consistent democracy rather than anarchism cannot be accepted without the test of criticism.

The origins of this are in Jack’s previous arguments about Scotland and Wales. He denies Scotland and Wales are nations. Therefore the right of nations to self-determination cannot apply to them. This is a logical, but politically unacceptable conclusion. Jack decides to take a libertarian attitude and grant them the right anyway. Therefore he invents a ‘right to self-determination’, which can now apply to non-nations like Scotland and Wales and the British-Irish.

The right of nations to self-determination is recognised by Marxism as a principle of consistent democracy. But the newly invented ‘right to self-determination’ means we no longer need any guidelines for defining nations. Anybody can form their own state. Here lies an anarchist principle, based on extreme individualism. When carried out consistently it leads to conclusions that are absurd and reactionary.

So when Jack looks inside this can of worms, the sight is so horrible that he has been trying to close the lid ever since. Jack recognises the dangers in his thesis in sections 18 and 19. He says: “There can be no right of secession for political movements or religions as such.” Unfortunately he is trying to plug the holes in a leaky sieve. The new ‘right’ to form a separate state applies to non-nations, but not to political or religious movements. Where does that leave us?

Consistent democrats are not simply concerned with minority rights. Democracy means the rule of the majority and the subordination of the minority to majority decisions. This means coercion. The majority will apply force - at first moral, but ultimately physical force against the minority. We know the tyranny that can take place in the name of the majority. Therefore real democracy makes absolutely sure that the rights of the minority are identified and enforced in practice.

In terms of workers’ democracy we accept the decision to take strike action is decided by majority vote. The minority must have the full freedom for criticism both before and after the decision is taken. But they do not have a right to defy the majority by scabbing. The word ‘scab’ shows the absolute condemnation which the workers’ movement has for minority ‘self-determination’. The right to scab by ignoring majority decisions is an example of anarchism or extreme individualism.

Suppose that the majority votes to remove the rights of a minority and take action to enforce this. Consistent democrats would oppose this absolutely, as a defence of working class democracy and consider it justified to ‘scab’ or take up arms. Fortunately in our movement anti-democratic strikes are the exception, not the rule. Consistent democracy is not the absence of force, but the application of force to the minority. But this force is two-sided. The violence of the majority is used to suppress the threat of force and violence by the rebellious minority. It always takes two to tango.

Naturally pacifists do not make good democrats. Bourgeois democracy is not and can never be democratic, because it is based on the permanent rule of the minority class over the majority. This does not prevent capitalist governments claiming the democratic mantle in every decision they make. It does not prevent consistent democrats from organising action against such ‘democratic’ government. The poll tax was a classic example.

Marxism applies consistent democracy to the national question. Marxism demands that the question of unification or national separation or secession is settled by majority vote in a referendum. But who should vote? The constituency is defined by the ‘nation’. The ‘nation’ is the sovereign political constituency in the modern world. This is why consistent democracy cannot separate ‘self-determination’ from ‘nation’. This is why we defend the right of nations to self-determination and not the right of individuals, families, religions, cultural groups or boy scouts to form their own states.

Unfortunately the definition of who is a nation is never clear-cut. It is a problem. It is made worse by the fact that new nations may emerge that we have not previously recognised. Life is a great teacher and we should never be absolutely dogmatic about our check list. But Stalin’s position on this in 1913 still seems to me to be the best guidelines we have.

In the case of Ireland we have to base consistent democracy on national self-determination on whether there is one nation (culturally divided) or two. If there is one nation (my view), then the right to decide on unity or separation belongs to this constituency and this constituency alone. If a minority, guaranteed full democratic rights, rebels, then the majority has the right to use force. In addition, the current nationalist minority in Northern Ireland are part of the Irish majority and have the legitimate right to rebel against partition. Partition was a fundamentally undemocratic act.

On the other hand if there are two nations in Ireland then both nations have the right to referendum. The British-Irish part of Ireland has a legitimate democratic right to remain part of Britain or form its own state. The partition of Ireland was then democratically legitimate, albeit the border was wrongly drawn. Repartition might be the best democratic solution. Whilst we would demand equal rights for the catholic minority, the armed struggle by the IRA for a united Ireland would then be an anti-democratic use of force. A united Ireland would only be democratically legitimate if the British Irish voted for it. It would be a voluntary union which would obviously contain the right to leave: ie, self-determination.

Jack’s position seems to fall between these two stools. It is inconsistent. He agrees that the struggle of the IRA is legitimate. The British-Irish must be forced to join a united Ireland from which they will then be allowed to leave. We want to use force to get them there, but not keep them there. The obvious question is why we should force them there in the first place. We have arrived back at the ‘protestant veto’ and the Good Friday Agreement. Blair’s new unionism is the promise to give Catholics full minority rights within the British nation.

Let us now return to Jack’s view of the British nation: that is, the British-Irish, British-English, British-Scots, and British-Welsh. He set out to show that there was a British nation, which might otherwise be called the Anglo-protestant nation. The Anglo-protestant nation was forged in the 17th century and incorporated south Wales, lowland Scotland, and northern Ireland in opposition to what has been called the ‘Celtic fringe’: north Wales, Scottish highlands and catholic Ireland. The existence of this reactionary imperialist ‘British nation’ seems to me to be indisputable.

However, Jack goes one dangerous and unnecessary step further. He denies that Scotland and Wales (and perhaps England and Ireland) are nations. In fact they are real nations suffocating under the rule of the Anglo-protestant nation, symbolised by the monarchy and the union jack. The British nation is not homogeneous, but a multinational state. Within the British nation-state, there are four nations struggling to breathe, struggling for air, struggling to get out in the open.

Recognising both the British nation and the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish nations is to recognise the real political contradictions that exist in these islands. The British-Irish are not a nation, but the Anglo-protestant part of the Irish nation. We are in the midst of working out an historical resolution of this. Our slogan of a federal republic of England, Scotland, and Wales, and for a united Ireland, indicates the road that we communists think the people and especially the working class should travel to resolve these contradictions.

Federal united Ireland - yes. Self-determination for the British-Irish – no.