Guest post: What does a vote for Sinn Féin really mean?
The following is a thought-provoking guest post by itwassammymcnallywhatdoneit. It's interesting because it rather flies in the face of the usual nationalist analysis: i.e. that a vote for Sinn Féin does not necessarily imply any degree of approval for the IRA's campaign of violence.
By itwassammymcnallywhatdoneit
Berty Ahern, famously opined that SF and the Provos “are two sides of the same coin”.
By itwassammymcnallywhatdoneit
Berty Ahern, famously opined that SF and the Provos “are two sides of the same coin”.
Now, if we leave aside the boul Berty’s general tendency to get things wrong (especially when he was Taoiséach) and if we also leave aside the amusing protestations of President Adams that he has never heard of the IRA (or whatever it is Gerry likes to tell us from time to time) and assume that on this one at least, Bertram is on the money, then what does that tell us about the majority of the Northern Nationalist electorate who vote for SF?
Well, it surely tells us, that Northern Nationalists have, at the least, an ambivalent attitude to the Provo’s campaign of violence. It surely also tells us, that Northern Nationalists view the Provo campaign as having been more inspired by politics than criminality - and that however unpleasant and unfortunate some of it may have been, those who organised it (and according to Berty that would be the current SF leadership), are now fully deserving of the rewards of political office.
It is not as if the Nationalist electorate have no choice. The decline of the SDLP began when John Hume (probably the most popular Nationalist politician since the 1930s in either part of the island) was still at the helm and that decline has continued with the SDLP’s two remaining redoubts, South Down and Derry coming under increasing electoral siege.
No one in the SDLP has ever fired a shot, or set off a bomb, or organised any such activities, and yet, having stood their political ground and supplied in John Hume the political architect of the current settlement, not just between Orange and Green, but also between Ireland and Britain, they nevertheless find themselves losing out to SF - who are now claiming the SDLP’s political ground as their very own.
Nationalists, it would therefore seem, don’t not vote for the SDLP because, as it is sometimes claimed, they don’t cut the political mustard, but rather because most Nationalists prefer to vote for a party, who (according to Berty) did either fire guns and set off bombs or organised such activities.
Northern Nationalists now accept the legitimacy of the northern political arrangements but their current voting habits suggest they also accept the legitimacy of a Provo campaign of violence that helped destroy the previous political arrangements.
Such views on the legitimacy of the Provo campaign are not of course shared by Unionists, but Unionists do generally share Berty’s view of the relationship between SF and violence, as reflected in the continued use of the term ‘SF-IRA’ and the occasionally less than diplomatic outbursts such as the ‘SF scum’ remarks by UUP Leader Tom Elliott.
Perhaps, it is with deference to Unionism’s sensitivities, or perhaps because of the proverbial ‘Catholic’ guilt, that when Nationalists are opinion-polled the level of SF support is generally under recorded. But, when it comes to the polls that really matter, Nationalists clearly prefer to vote for those who (according to Berty), have a violent past.
…and however politically uncomfortable it may be to admit this in a society still scarred and divided by decades of violence and still striving to come to terms with that past - let’s not pretend otherwise.
Comments
I am suggesting that the current Nationalist vote for SF indicates an acceptance of the legitimacy of the IRA campaign - and I'm not disputing that this process of acceptance has been facilitated by the passage of time and the Peace Process.
I dont think it is credible to suggest that because some Nationalists of voting age 'have no memory of the IRA campaign' that they dont understand the relationship between the current SF leadership and the IRA campaign.
Nationalists like the current Political arrangements and they seem to like those who used violence to bring them about more than they like those who didnt.
While it is obviously and almost trivially true that "Nationalists like the current Political arrangements and they seem to like those who used violence to bring them about more than they like those who didnt", this is rather far from retrospectively legitimising that violence.
If you just want to engage in polemics about nationalist voters being morally flawed because they vote for bad people, that's up to you, but I don't think it really improves anyone's understanding of the situation.
I completely accept your premise that the IRA campaign was wrong in the first place. But you frame the argument as if the IRA were the only perpetrators of violence on whom Nationalist voters could form a judgement. In fact, most Nationalists would have experienced a rather greater fear of violence from other sources, and would have experienced the Troubles not just as the IRA disrupting their society but as a pattern violence from numerous perpetrators, brought to an end in the 1994-98 process.
The fact is that while the IRA campaign was ongoing, it failed to secure the support of a majority of Nationalist voters. This to me suggests that whatever reasons Nationalist voters have had for switching from the SDLP to SF, the IRA campaign probably is not one of them. I will go along with you as far as to say that today's Nationalist voters are certainly not voting against the IRA campaign, as they did during the years when it was happening. But it is a bigger stretch to say that they are voting for something that ended over a decade ago.
Unionism has historically acted against my principles and interests. The Alliance are also my enemies.
My choice is therefore SDLP or Sinn Féin. If one gets #1 the other gets #2. Its that simple.
Both act in accord with my principles and/or interest.
The place where I am is a better place than when I first voted (1970) and frankly both SDLP and SF-IRA are responsible.
SDLP likes to think it was politics wot won it.
SF thinks it was violence.
Neither will admit it but both are right.
Did the nationalits approve of the IRA campaign? The only honest answer is "sometimes". Bloody Friday....I dont think Ive ever met a nationalist who approved. But I dont think Ive met many who had a problem with "Narrow Water".
ironically members and partisans of SDLP and SF hardly speak to each other.........not a view shared by the nationalist community.
The only thought process for a voter is effectiveness. And at this moment SF is clearly more "effective". Nationalism needs TWO parties and the SDLP needs to "man up" to provide a clear nationalist/republican alternative. And treat Alliance as an electoral enemy.
Of course Unionism (which has hidden behind state violence) would have done nothing for me and mine in the 1960s. Neither would holier than thou NILP/NUM/Alliance. I owe them nothing but total contempt.
Some will of course say "for shame....how could I possibly....?".
Well actually I can do it easily. Ive seen Terrorism up close. Ive seen Counter Terrorism up close.
I didnt like either very much.
re. "If you just want to engage in polemics about nationalist voters being morally flawed because they vote for bad people, that's up to you, but I don't think it really improves anyone's understanding of the situation."
I think it is important that there is a bit of honesty about Nationalists views of the past not least because when it comes to attempts at organised reconcilliation and the attitude to 'victims' there needs to be a fuller understanding of both communities viewpoint.
Is it just SF that believe that there should be parity between all victims including former IRA combatants or is that a view shared with the majority of the Nationalist electorate - I would suggest the latter - do you agree?
captainfarrell,
re. "The only honest answer is "sometimes". Bloody Friday....I dont think Ive ever met a nationalist who approved. But I dont think Ive met many who had a problem with "Narrow Water".
I think you have hit the nail on the head.
Understandably, Unionists often view such Nationalist attitudes to the IRA campaign as deeply offensive, as they see that campaign as sectarian and at least partly directed at themselves and the campaign was certainly aimed at Unionism's preferred form of government - and that is a major difficulty with this discussion.
In my own view the IRA campaign did have political legitmacy, although I disagreed heartily with many apsects of it and would very much like to see the current SF leadership explain to everyone how and why they decided to conduct it the way they did - and I suspect many Nationalists would also share that view.
I also suspect that most SF voters would far rather Gerry Adams explain his role in the IRA than pretend he never had any connection with them.
The first point to bear in mind is that this is a subjective question. What a vote for Sinn Fein means depends on the individual point of view.
It is true that during the PIRA campaign, the SDLP was more popular than Sinn Fein. At a number of points during the conflict, the Sinn Fein vote diminished because of a number of high-profile incidents, such as the Enniskillen bomb in 1987.
The Good Friday Agreement was a watershed moment in terms of how many Nationalists viewed Sinn Fein. Making the commitment to the decommisioning of arms and the disbandment of the IRA was crucial. A large number of Nationalists considered that from that point onwards, it was acceptable to focus on Sinn Fein's political objectives without having to assent to any violent means of achieving them.
Sinn Fein's subsequent increase in its vote was, for the most part, because it managed to project itself as the stronger Nationalist party. Their party machine is stronger and better organised.
The SDLP still has a "hard core" group of supporters who will never vote Sinn Fein. Many of them do, indeed, hold the view expressed by Berty Ahern but this is a view of a diminishing number of people.
Today, Nationalists are more likely to follow the stronger of the two parties. In theory, the SDLP could increase its share of the vote at the expense of Sinn Fein. Unfortunately, for them, there is not enough talent at the top of that party and they seem destined to remain the smaller of the Nationalist parties for many years to come.
But Legality does not imply Morality any more than Illegality implies Immorality.
I dont go along with the notion that Decommissioning or the Dissolution of the IRA was a genuine sea change. In the first instance it provided Nationalists with a fig leaf to vote Sinn Fein. In the second instance most nationalists dont believe the IRA has gone away you know.
Most choose to believe that the Peace is undepinned rather than undermined by the IRA being at the heart of government.
In this case it is unionists clutching at fig leaves to believe its really the opposite.
Sinn Féin is in the mode of Fianna Fáil in the 1930s. They can not desert the Hunger Strike legacy/Armed Struggle legacy any more than FF could have deserted the 1916-22 period or the Civil War and Liam Lynch and all that.
I dont have my figures in front of me. But around 170,000 people voted "constitutional nationalist" (mostly SDLP in June 1973.
In 2011 it was 270,000 the increase coming largely from former abstentionists.
But only 94,000 voted SDLP in 2011.
In May 1973 90,000 plus voted Alliance. It fell to abnbout 65,000 in June 1973.
Yet the AP only polled 52,000 in 2011 which its adherents consider a success story.
The SDLP should have concentrated at least as much fire on the Alliance Party.
As has been mentioned the "critical mass" of nationalists did switch votes after the IRA campaign was over. But not BECAUSE it was over.
It was a range of issues. SDLP arrogance or a sense of entitlemen, lethargy, poor leadership, a poor second XI to replace the likes of Hume, Mallon, Hendron, Rodgers.
And the protracted negotiations after 1998, Timbles Garvaghy Road support, and a sense that only SF could "put some manners on him".
And this was again mirrored in unionists flocking to DUP.
The lesson of 1998-2005 was that the UUP-SDLP completely blew it.
re. "The Good Friday Agreement was a watershed moment in terms of how many Nationalists viewed Sinn Fein."
It was, but then was so were the hunger strikes and the election of Bobby Sands arguably revealed, more than any other issue, Nationalism's attitude to IRA violence and illustrated clearly that those who were carrying it out had a political legitimacy with the Nationalist electorate.
I'm not sure the lack of 'talent at the top' line really provide an expanation for the failure of the SDLP - it is rather that Nationalists prefer SF - not overly endowed with talent at the top (in the conventional political sense)themselves.
captain farrell,
re. "The lesson of 1998-2005 was that the UUP-SDLP completely blew it."
Its rather like the old sporting debate as to whether they game was lost because of poor defending or won becuase of good attacking.
The UUP were effectively trapped into compromise by the British government and the SDLP were outflanked becuase they did not look as appealing to Nationalism as post-revolutionary SF.
Both the UUP and the SDLP did what was necessary for Northern Ireland and both ended up being outlflanked by those with more extreme views than themselves. I dont really think we can blame either party for that.