“inherently sectarian nature of the Six County statelet. The…”

inherently sectarian nature of the Six County statelet. The authors argue that the political changes which occurred over the past ten years have not modified social and economic discrimination against the Catholic minority. This was never the intention of the British authorities. Their aim was to adopt the Northern state to new post-war forms of capital development while leaving the old privelege of the Protestant community intact. As the title of the book implies, there is no "reformist" halfway house between sectarianism and the destruction of the N.I. statelet.

This thesis has much in common with the analysis put forward by Peoples Democracy. The authors however make their own distinctive contribution, not least because they bring together for the first time, such a wealth of data and information. But also some new and important points are aired in the course of their discussion. The most striking feature of their work is that they treat the North solely in terms of its relationship with Britain. Their intention is to avoid a "potted" history of events "complete with constitutional scenario, etc". But when they come to look at trends of development and possible outcomes, this artificial starting point produces some strained reasoning.

Why is the choice bet ween a retum to old fashioned Unionist rule and the dismantlement of the N.I. statelet so stork? Why have the changes introduced under Direct Rule no chance of producing political stabtility? O'D',R' and T's explanation is framed in the context of overall changes in *he British state which accomponied the rise of post-war, Corporative capitalism. Briefly, centralised economic planning put greater emphasis on Regional co-ordination and efficient Local Government. While this approach was consistent with the interests of British zopitalis~ it clashed head-on with the needs of Unionism which relied heavily on decentralised local administration to keep the Catholic minority in check. As the authors see it, the contradiction between a sectarian society and Corporate state institutions, condemned Britain's power-sharing manoeuvres to inev -itable failure. Since then the restructuring of British capitalism in the late '70's has changed the bal -ance in favour of Unionism. Local government was once again becoming on important tool by which the central state delegates responsibility for public expenditure cuts. This new decentralisation of power is facilitating o retum to traditional (albeit) modified Unionist rule.

Despite disclaimers to the contrary, O'Dowd, Rolston and Tomlinson are misled by a fatalistic appraisal of the relationship between economics ond politics. There is on implicit assumption in their analysis - evidenced by their belief that the changes of the post decade were a reflex of British economic strategy that political arrangement relate directly to specific economic and social requirements.

It is odd that the authors should moke such an error since their general approach owes much to the work of the State Group of the Conference of Socialist Economist: which displays great subtlety on this issue. Among other things, the CSE-SG carefully acknowledges the autonomous political rationale of Local Government - its role in legitimating bourgeois democracy and representing dominont local interests. Even in Britain itself, these specifically political functions thwarted the streamlining of local administration, permitting as it happened, the wholesale survival of archaic, Tory dominated authorities. Similarly, all the evidence (explored by the authors themselves) indicates that un acceptable compromise between the Unionists and British Government had been resched in the 60's which would hove vantages of the North for the British economy.

of local government in Britain will promote a retum of Unionist power in the North. In any event, it is hard to imagine how the Tory cuts con be interpreted os strengthening local administering. By making the “quangos" and other bureaucratic agencies, powerless it is possible that a political vacuum will be created at local level. While this may increase the bargaining power of Unionism it does not automatically provide on institutional framework for reestablishing a Stormont-type regime.

The above points are made, not to deny the plausibility of the author's basic thesis, but to indicate that on important political factor - the revolf of the Catholic masses ~ is marginalised in their analysis. The change in Britain's policy and its relations with tbe Unionists cannot be understood without putting the struggle of the Catholic minority at the centre of development. Many of the changes introduced in the 70's went far beyond anything originally intended by Britain and came as a direct attempt to diffuse mass pressure.

Thot Nationalist revolt was itself triggered by a series of complex dev2lopments which operated on a 32 zountry level ond in reaction, Britzin's response has gradually assumed an all-lreland character. The proper point of departure for analysing the North is, indeed, the role it plays in maintaining British domination throughout Ireland. Had the authors concentrated on this they could have but a text indispensible for all those Fighting British imperialism. reconciled both the need for "strong" local government and the regional adThey do not give any extended treatment to their claim that a restoration workers; -ocrats, produced not just an interesting book, least in words rather than action. They are more concious of the pressure from below. Statements questioning the durability of the National Understanding have been made, but entirely in the absence of an independent plan of action by T.U. leaders.

Two experiences probably crystallise the frustration of thousands of The conservative attitude of their leaders towards the Tax Reform campaign by which they diverted a growing mass movement froma path towards victory by mass and direct action, into a side show of petition gathering and little else. This must be seen by workers as a cynical manoevevre by the ICTU which opposed the mass mobilisations in the first place and then took in order to destroy them, The dogged determined no holds barred attitude of the farmers leaders which has stood in sharp contrast to the trade union bureavuWhile there is no wide scale move towards creating o new leadership in the unions, something is happen -ing in many of the larger unions. Some of the " Old Guard "-i.e. the deadwood of the old labour aristocracy are being replaced by a new"Elite". Though fundamentally social democratic in nature, it couches reformist projects in radical language and it appears also somewhat more efficient at building its base. The motor force for this new elite is the organisation "Sinn Fein the Workers Party".

It is obvious to mony in the ontiimperialist and labour and trade union movements that this party has adapted its politics to the social layer it has built itself on. This is particularly evident in the way it has accomodated the middle and lower level bureavocracy in the unions through its industrial policy, For the SFWP National Wage Agree ments are not fundamentally undemoc -ratic just inadequate in achieving The upcoming contest for position of Vice President in the country's largest union the ITGWU puts many questions on the agenda for this party. They are fielding Des Geraghty (if not a formal member-o close sy mpathiser).*His appeal for votes circulated to all the branches mentions his history and experience with the union and more recently his role as "communications officer". A strong position from which to fight for power. But not a word of politics- of what the immediate issues are and changes to be made. But Des Geraghty is not alone. Not one of the candidates(ALL men) has stated anything other than an outline of their personal history. It would be hard for the rank and file to be enthusiastic about this election.

Militants must discuss the following point; would a vote for any of the candidates change the bolonce in favour of the rank ond file.

The conduct of the election is also a major reason for alienation of the rank and file. It is, according to union rules, the branch committees which mandate the delegates to conference (elected from branch committee) to vote for a particular candidate. The vast numbers of rank and file members are uninvolved. It is obvious that the method of general meetings of the bronch and a national ballot is the most democratic way to elect a leadership.

Trade union militants should vigorously pursue o course of confronting all the candidates on their views on all major issues which face the trade unions and the | rish working class. They should be questioned on: equality and democratic rights for women; the economic crisis and their solutions; repression and the “criminalisation" of Irish political prisoners. In short, they should be forced to stand up and be counted -or cast aside. Only when they have spoken or been seen to be silent, can the question as to who defends the rights and interests of Irish workers be clearly recognised.

JOAN BRADY

SOCIALIST REPUBLIC PAGE 4 North,