Interesting article I found. Not sure how I feel about it.

Four Reasons for Ideological Shift



Liam O Ruairc • January 27, 2005

While one reader's letter correctly pointed out that the Provisional Movement's radical move was to take up SDLP policy (24 January), the author's explanation of that new departure is insufficient.

The first reason for such a shift is that there is an essential discontinuity between the Provisional movement and the Republican tradition. Traditionally, the Catholic population of the North has been Nationalist rather than Republican. Remember that it was in 1983 that Gerry Adams became the first ever Sinn Fein MPs to be elected in Belfast.

Even De Valera couldn't achieve that. Anthony McIntyre has correctly argued that the Provisional movement was more the product of certain structural factors rather than tradition spawned ideological factors, and was born out of conjonctural protest rather than the reigniting of some long dormant flame. Provisional Republicanism is for the most part a post
1969 phenomenon, it truly arose from the ashes of Belfast's Bombay Street in 1969 and not the rubble of Dublin's O'Connell Street in 1916. Many people joined or supported the Provisional movement because they needed to defend their homes and streets and suffered from economic discrimination, political and cultural marginalisation and state repression; and not because of a strong sense of traditional republican ideology and history.


http://www.phoblacht.net/lor2801053g.html

There really are two issues (at least) involved in the NI mess--republicanism (one island, one nation) and Catholic civil rights, the cause of 1969. The two have been joined for decades, but they aren't intrinsically one.

There is some thought that dropping the emphasis on republicanism might make achieving the goal of civil rights easier--that seems to have been one of the points in getting the Republic to drop that part of the constitution. If the Loyalists aren't as threatened, they will ease up their grip. However, some of that group depend on their role as "persecuted majority" for their very identity (you KNOW who I'm thinking of!) and will never feel other than threatened.

There's a lovely sad song on Patrick Street's "Street Life"--"If We Had Built a Wall" by Dominic Madden. It muses that "If we'd have built a wall from Dunkalk to Donegal" it would have eventually come down like the Berlin Wall and then "we could sell the Germans souvenirs."

But, in the last elections SF and the DUP made the biggest gains. That tells me that NI is as much, if not more, divided than before The Accords. Sort of like this country. The political discourse is being driven by two parties that will never agree. The Brits seem unable or unwilling to pressure the DUP to quit stalling (and I do lay most of the blame on the DUP).

The threat to the Loyalists is mostly in the mind of Rev. Paisley and his followers. Even with all the concessions that the Republicans have given, the Loyalist position is as hard as ever. I'm to the point were I think the DUP should be outlawed. It would cause some problems for awhile but we are getting no where fast the way it is going. I'm glad smarter folks than I are working on this problem.

Thank-you for your very thoughtful reply. This article and your thread really are making me rethink some of my positions.

The peace process has ground to a halt, nothing is changing and there is still stonewalling on investigations of 30+ year old murders. Those who do not want a peaceful political solution (some on ALL sides; there are more than 2 sides to this mess) are doing what they can to destroy the fragile accord.

I'm really afraid that the current attempt to criminalize SF will result in the re-energizing of the strongmen ("See, we tried to go the political route and look how they treated us! Might as well be shot for a sheep as a lamb...")

Thank you for the conversation. Monologues are no fun!

causing more division. I wish I had a better grasp of the nuances of the current situation.