Tw/o Nations Theory and Southern Intellectuals

It has been said that just as a thunderstorm clears the atmosphere, so too a revolutionary upsurge clears the political arena of all confusion and obscurantism — the major issues of the day become posed in a definite and precise way. After the UWC strike of June it can also be said that a counter-revolutionary eruption leaves in its wake nothing but mystification and hysteria.

Anybody réading through the Left and Republican press in the last two months will have already detected. these symptoms. One minute the Officials brand the UWC as “fascist”, next they are calling for a United Front with it. Daithi O’Connell expresses his admiration for the Loyalists, while the columns of An Phoblacht blasts away at them. The economist Left in unison condemns the UWC strike as reactionary yet views it as a break by the Protestant working class from Unionism etc.

The most interesting sign of the tims however, is that it is precisely at the moment when the Left is so utterly confused and bewildered that sections of the bourgeois intelligentsia turns to it in search of solutions. A recent example of this is the publicity received in the news media by the so-called Workers Association for a Democratic Settlement of the National Conflict in Ireland. For instance, Liam de Paor, one of Ireland’s leading historians reviewing the Workers Association’s recent pamphlet The U/ster General Strike (which consists of a series of strike bulletins distributed daily during the strike) in the /rish Times says that their Two Nations Theory “has been cogent and effective in criticising the idea of the unitary Irish nation” and that “their incisive and well-written criticism of the received view which was being propagated by most of the British and Irish commentators during the strike makes very interesting reading . . . For anyone interested in the root cause of the Northem trouble... they are something that should be read” (6/8/°74)

Of course De Paor has his own criticism to make of the Workers Association (W.A.). What concerns us here however is his deadly serious treatment of them. If the Southern intelligentsia and the Irish ruling class as a whole was anywhere near understanding the nature of the conflict in the North it is scarcely believable that they would throw a second glance at the W.A.’s literature before junking it contemptiously into the wastebasket.

Loyalist hysterics A look at the contents of the W.A.’s pamphlet affords ample proof of this. Far from the “cogent” and “effective” arguments De Paor speaks of, the most striking feature of the publication is a pronounced tinge of Loyalist hysteria.

In the first bulletin for instance there is a warning that the Southern government has suppressed its claim to the North “only for the time being”. This kind of nonsensense is designed To mention Peopies Democracy in the same sentence as the British Labour Party can cause a startling reply from PD (see Unfree Citizen)

5th August 74). The phrase “from PD to the Official Republicans, Billy Blease of ICTU and British Labour Politicians” might indicate to some that the writer is referring to.a fairly wide spectrum of political thought. Not to those who write in Unfree Citizen. They see it as an attempt to equate PD with the British Labour Party — “tan extremely vicious and petty attempt to discredit our organisation and clearly the product of a politically sectarian mind.”

The cause of this outburst was an article in Plough (vol. 2, No. 9) in which there was an article on the UWC strike. It contained the sentence “The Peoples Democracy stamped the strike fascist without explanation” PD reply in Unfree Citizen indicates a continuing confusion as regards fascism.

A new surprise We can ignore the more obvious errors such as that where PD claims that in Europe fascism always took socialists by surprise. We can assume that this was not a reference to Trotsky and the Left Opposition but to the Stalinists and Social Democrats. And even there, the betrayals by Stalinism of the German proletariat was not the result of having been taken by surprise. To claim that it was merely provides a cover for the Stalinists.

In order to prove that PD have, in fact, provided a full analysis of the fascism o f the loyalists the writer devotes a full quarter of the article to a list of articles in previous Unfree for the single purpose of whipping up Loyalist emotions — unless anyone believes that after 50 years the Southern government is suddendly going to invade the North!

The second bulletin represents the British Press as acting as a propaganda mouthpiece for the Provos! “You have spent much time talking to the Provisionals and reporting their version of events” the British press is told accusingly. Bulletin No. 3 interpets the Labour government’s position on the UWC as meaning that it wishes “to smash the Protestant working class into the In the fourth bulletin the Dublin government is pictured as expecting “A British withdrawal from Northern Ireland at the first opportunity” and once again the spectre of southern expansionism is given flesh, blood and fangs by referring to the Council of Ireland which apparently would enable the Southem ruling class to take over the North.

The insights of the W.A. become even more perceptive, in their fifth bulletin “What we see today” they declare “is the lunatic ideology >f the Peoples Democracy in control of a Britisn Department of State” And in natural conjunction with that “The entire(!) British Press sounds ‘Free Citizen””’. By bulletin No. 6 Conor Cruise O’Brien has suddenly transformed himself into a Catholic nationalist “warmonger” and his timid little follower in the SDLP “are indulging themselves in an orgy of authoritarian fantasies.”

In the seventh bulletin the British Labour government is characterised as “infinitely closer to fascism than the UWC” and these Labour “fascists” are accused of “offering one provocation after another and trying to bring about a confrontation”.

But there is no point in continuing. The pamphlet proceeds in this vein right to the end of the ten bulletins, The convulsed tones seem to have escaped De Paor’s attention. It appears that the Southern intellegentsia is so bereft of ideas about the North that simply to gain a few grains of “truth”, they must close their eyes and ears and stand in admiration before the demented. __. ravings of a few pseudo-left intellectuals who are high on the hysterical verve generated by the Loyalist strike.

“Effective Arguments”

What is it then that has attracted so many southern intellectuals to what De Paor describes as “The Communist View” of the W.A.? It is supposedly the much talked about “rigourous ‘logic’ of the Two Nations Theory which contrasts with the ambivlance of traditional Republican ideology. But in this pamphlet on the UWC strike, where the W.A.’s theorising reaches its peek, the logic and method of the two nations theory is shown to be so inflexible and dogmatic as to produce nothing less than simple incoherence.

The key argument of the W.A. is that the Assembly and power-sharing executive fell, not because of “Protestant trumphalism”, but because of the emphasis placed on the Council of Ireland by the combined forces of the British government, to end power-sharing.

with such implecable logic. Or perhaps the W.A. hasn’t noticed?! the aid of . . . an elaborate figleaf! the Free State and the SDLP. The Loyalist reaction is viewed as nothing more than a legitimate attempt to prevent Protestant “national “rights” being userped and in no way as an effort Now watch how this argument is developed The Council of Ireland, said to be such a big threat to the ‘national rights’ of the Protestant working class, is admitted in the very first bulletin to be nothing more than “a half-baked Council” and “a fig leaf for the Dublin Government” to hide its naked acceptance of partition. Indeed no reasonable observer could doubt that the Council of Ireland was anything but a hollow gesture. Nontheless, according to the W.A. this hollow gesture constituted a real threat to the “national rights” of the Protestant community!

Is the Protestant working class really so sensitive that it can be galvanised into a general strike at the sight of the Dublin government represents. and the SDLP brandishing a fig leaf? No, the fact is that there was something more substantial behind the actions of the Protestant workers. The Protestant workers, lead by the large labour aristocracy in its midst, is not prepared to see its economic, social and political privileges whittled away. This means in particular that they are not prepared to permit their own ruling class to share executive power with the representatives of the Catholic middle-class. Craig, West and Paisley are not complaining. They have declared on many occasions that they will not share power with the SDLP. That, incidently, is why they are members of the UWC and have acted as spokesmen for it.

The role of the SDLP, viewed-by the W.A. as the real villians, is dealt with in equally “logical” terms. Bulletin No. 4 correctly states that “the: SDLP are undoubtedly committed to power sharing within the United Kingdom”. But only a few days later, in bulletin No. 8, the W.A. suddenly Sharing in order to further its anti-partitionist sharing? The W. A. ee the question in only two words — “tyes” and “no”’. Apparently the emphasis on either word Sonat on the level of hysteria in the Loyalist camp. .. and to hell with logic.

Using the same “logic” the W.A. also throws some interesting light on the activities of the Dublin Government during the strike. Firstly, they say that the Council of Ireland is only “‘a fig leaf for the Dublin government which enables them to represent Sunningdale.as an anti-partitionist victory.” Then in Bulletin No. 4 they claim that “It is known that the Dublin cabinet has been reckoning on a British withdrawal from Northern Ireland at the first opportunity. And in the context of that reckoning the importance of an elaborate Parliamentary structure for the Council is greatly increased.” -More precisely what the W.A. is trying to do is whip up Loyalist hysteria with horror stories about the expansionist intentions of the Free State by saying to the Protestant workers: the Dublin government is going to take you over with Untortunately, we can’t deal with the many other gems of wisdom contained in the pamphlet. Suffice to say that this is the kind of half-lliterate fantasising that De Paor describes as “very interesting reading” and recommends “should be read by anyone interested in the root cause of the Northern trouble”. Perhaps he means as an example of warped Loyalist thinking? Which side?

In conclusion let us note that the W.A. abandons totally the materialist underpinnings of the “Communist View”. For Marxists, the activity of a political party representing a particular social force is limited by certain parameters ie by the economic and social relations of the period. Thus, for example, the manoeuverability of the SDLP in the recent crisis was conditioned ultimately by the economic and social interests of the Northern Catholic middle-class which it But the W.A. rejects this line of though. In bulletin No. 10 they state that “It was the political ambitions of the SDLP leaders, not pressure from the Catholic community, that was responsible for extermist SDLP behavior in the recent period, The SDLP might have led the Catholic community into a democratic power-sharing arrangement. It chose to do otherwise,and put anti-Partitionist manoeuvring to the fore.”

So it was out of sheer spite that the SDLP alledgedly destroyed power sharing. Here we have the old theory of the good and the bad men determining history. Needless to say, this theory explains nothing except the prejudices of those with a penchant for it. In the caseofthe W.A. ° these prejudices are not hard to deduce. According to them the SDLP were bad men and for no other reason than that, chose the wrong course in history. But what are the criteria for right and wrong, good and bad? These are assumed in advance to coincide with the interests of Loyalism. So in the end the _pigosees Ingle” of she W. A,

----- pull-quotes -----

discovered that “the SDLP only engaged in Power aims”. iP emaodoned teen asemaiatl ee: