The Origins and Rise of Dissident Irish Republicanism

The Role and Impact of Organizational Splits

John F. Morrison

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781501309236
• eBook ISBN: 9781623560096
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Relaciones internacionales

Throughout its history the Irish Republican Movement has been beset by splits. The former paramilitary and author Brendan Behan famously quipped that, 'The first thing on the agenda was always the split.' In this in-depth research Morrison analyses the splits through his extensive range of interviews with leadership and rank and file members of the political and paramilitary wings of the Movement. This timely analysis shows how the splits have both aided the politicization of Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA while in parallel they have brought about the recent intensification of dissident Republican paramilitary activity. He charts the rise of groups including the Real IRA, Continuity IRA and the newly emerging 'New IRA.' By applying his unique process model of splits Morrison provides an insightful analysis of this long-lasting terrorist movement.

1

Towards 2016

The fifteenth anniversary of the signing of the Good Friday Agreement has inevitably warranted a retrospective analysis of the historic, and at times fraught, peace process which brought about its naissance. There is no questioning that this process has succeeded in bringing a stable political culture to the region. Tourism is gradually increasing, and inward investment is starting to come to Northern Ireland’s shores. However, just beneath the surface remains the spectre of paramilitary violence. While the end of 2012 was defined by the Loyalist ‘flags protests’ the most persistent threat still comes from violent dissident Republican groups. These groups have been responsible for some of the worst atrocities in a post-Good Friday Northern Ireland. From the Omagh bombing of August 1998 to the murder of prison officer David Black in November 2012 their violent actions have consistently attempted to wreak further havoc. Their tactics and targets may have evolved over time but their message has remained constant; they are committed to the maintenance of an armed campaign in order to achieve a united Ireland. The tragic evidence is there for all to see that the threat they pose should be of real concern to people both north and south of the border. Their violent acts, and threats of violence, have aimed to disrupt the normalization of a politically maturing region. While they have failed in destabilizing the political process they have succeeded in bringing a growing realization that while the peace process has prospered organized paramilitarism still survives, and will continue to survive. The Northern Irish Secretary Theresa Villiers admitted as much in a 2013 interview with The Independent newspaper.

The threat is severe and is likely to continue to be so in the years to come. I’m afraid to say there isn’t an imminent prospect of these terrorist attacks coming to an end.¹

This growing realization that the threat is not going away emphasizes the necessity of understanding. Academics and policy makers alike must strive to understand the purposes, aims and origins of these groups, while also recognizing why people may join or support them. Without this broader understanding in place the job of countering and silencing is all the more difficult. This understanding and appreciation of the groups and the threat they pose is not tantamount to approval. It is instead the essential starting point we must reach if we are ever to eliminate this threat, a starting point we are still largely seeking.

The debates continue about whether the term ‘dissidents’² or ‘ultras’³ is the most appropriate to describe them. Throughout this book they are consistently referred to as dissidents. This phrase is used as it my belief that their most defining characteristic is their dissent from ‘mainstream’ Republicanism.⁴ However, I do respect the argument of Jonathan Tonge and believe that it is also viable to refer to these groups as ‘ultras’ due to their persistence with armed Republicanism in deliberate ignorance of the wishes of the vast majority of the republican and nationalist populations of Ireland. However, the threat we are facing does not come from dissident Republicanism. There is clearly nothing wrong with disagreeing with the direction taken, and decisions made, by the Sinn Fein leadership. It actually promotes democratic voice within republican and nationalist communities. It allows for these communities to question this direction. However, it is when this dissidence is manifested in violent, threatening and paramilitary activity that there is a real problem to deal with. Therefore it is violent dissident republicanism specifically that we must be aiming to counter, and we must be supportive of the right to question all political parties through peaceful means.

With all this considered the purpose of this book is to add to our growing understanding. It aims to present and analyse the origins of these groups and the threats they pose. However, parallel to this it provides an analysis of how the Provisional Republican leadership brought the majority of their movement away from sustained paramilitary activity. This has been through the gradual politicization process which has seen them take their seats in Dail Eireann and Stormont and accept and support the legitimacy of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It has similarly seen the former Provisional IRA leader, Martin McGuinness, move away from his paramilitary past to a political existence in which he, as deputy First Minister, has referred to violent dissident Republicans collectively as ‘conflict junkies’, ‘stupid and selfish’ and most vehemently of all as ‘traitors to the island of Ireland’. In his eyes they are waging a ‘useless war against peace’. In order to assess all of this the book analyses the process which preceded these parallel results. It asks the question how did we get to where we are today? How did we get to a place where the former leadership of the Provisional IRA is committed to upholding the peace, and pursuing their goals, through democratic and political means while the remnants of paramilitary Republicanism are still engaged in a never ending ‘war’? These questions will be answered through the analysis of one of the most persistent phenomena in Irish republicanism, the split.

The power of a split extends far beyond the simple division of an organization. It is the culmination of a process of internal conflict and significant change. While a cursory analysis of division will justifiably signal them as the birthplace of the dissidents their effect is much wider than this. It is argued here that an analysis of the politicization of Provisional Irish Republicanism necessitates an analysis of the splits. It has been through splits that the Provisional leadership has been able to politicize. It has provided them with a platform to enable their gradual move away from paramilitary activity. However, at the same time it has similarly provided the impetus for sustained violent activity on both sides of the divide.

The continued success of the peace process is reliant on the commitment of the leaders of the various Northern Irish organizations, both violent and non-violent, to the utilization and promotion of peaceful politics.⁵ However, what is more important is that the majority of their organizational membership similarly ascribe to the power of politics as opposed to the employment of the gun and the bomb. A leadership promoting peaceful politics is only constructive if they convince their internal membership and support of its benefits. It has been the ability of the leadership of the modern day Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein to successfully convince the majority of its membership of these benefits which has ensured their continued involvement in the enduring peace process.

This has been a slow gradual process. In order to fully understand it one must assess Irish Republicanism from as far back as the early 1960s. In doing so there are four key splits analysed throughout this book. Each of the four splits can, to a degree, be regarded as a result of the leadership of the time aiming to bring a stronger political emphasis on the movement. The level of politicization within each of the splits was different, as was the resulting strength of the parent and dissident organizations. Therefore one of the most important parts of the research here is to assess why one leadership was more successful than the other in convincing the majority of their membership to support their politicization process.

The four main splits analysed here are:

•1969/70: The IRA and Sinn Fein splits to form Official Sinn Fein and the Official IRA on one side and Provisional Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA on the other side of the split.

•1974: The Official Republican Movement⁶ splits which sees the creation of the Irish Republican Socialist Movement consisting of the Irish National Liberation Army and the Irish Republican Socialist Party.

•1986: A split in the Provisional Irish Republican Movement where a group led by Ruairi O’Bradaigh and Daithi O’Conaill, among others, leave to form Republican Sinn Fein and the Continuity IRA.⁷ And,

•1997: The Provisional Republican Movement splits which sees the formation of the 32 County Sovereignty Committee⁸ and the Real IRA.⁹

These splits are not regarded as separate entities. They are intrinsically linked within the macro-process of Irish Republican involvement in the ‘Troubles’. The ’69/70, ’86 and ’97 splits are contained within the Provisional process while the ’69/70 and ’74 splits can be considered part of the Official process.

The start date of the analysis, 1969, is resonant within Irish Republicanism for a number of different reasons, one being the failure of the Goulding leadership of the IRA and Sinn Fein to bring the Irish Republican Movement away from violence and towards the acceptance of parliamentary politics, resulting in a dramatic split in the movement, a split which continues to effect both Irish and British society and security to this day. Alternatively the end date of 1997 can be regarded as being the point in time where the Provisional Irish Republican Movement, then the largest grouping of Irish Republican paramilitaries, ultimately moved to reject the further dominant use of violence in order to achieve their goals, and accepted a peaceful political approach.¹⁰ Consequently the choice of these four specific splits has provided an opportunity uncommon among much previous research on organizational splits. The four splits can be viewed as a continuum, with each interconnected.

The research analyses the splits from both an organizational and an individual perspective. Unlike much of the terrorism¹¹ literature the book does not automatically class the splits as a form of ‘end of terrorism’. Not all splits are analogous to the end of the terrorist group and some can be more accurately regarded as the naissance of a terrorist organization. The ’69/70 split which saw the birth of the Provisional IRA is a clear example of this.

While fundamentally analysing why and how the splits took place this research additionally allows one to see how and why the Provisional leadership of the late ’90s was able to succeed where the Goulding leadership had failed. They managed to convince the majority of Irish Republicans to accept the use of peaceful politics, as opposed to the dominant use of violence, to achieve their aims and goals.¹² Therefore while the research at first glance is analysing splits in Irish Republicanism and the origins of the dissidents it is also at a deeper level assessing how the leadership of the Republican Movement has successfully moved the majority away from a long campaign of terrorist violence and into the arena of peaceful politics. It provides an opportunity to assess why certain groups and individuals deemed it necessary to move away from this politicization process at certain points in time. In essence the research is not only looking to the reasoning for the splits but also to their functionality in allowing for Republican involvement in the peace process.¹³

The chosen splits can, and will, be looked at in two separate ways. They are analysed as individual stand-alone case studies of organizational splits. However, they are similarly analysed together as a series of intertwined splits within the one movement. They are presented in the book as four stage-based micro-processes within the macro-process of Republican involvement in the Troubles. This analysis is achieved by comparing and contrasting the two sides within each of the splits, as well as comparing the results of each of the individual divisions. Throughout the research there is the acknowledgement that the tactics of the Irish Republican Movement are not, and rarely have been, solely reliant on the use of terrorism and other violent tactics. It is a movement which has often times had armed and political wings working parallel to, and often times with, each other. This relationship between the use of paramilitarism and politics¹⁴ is a theme which is acknowledged by many to have played a central role in each of the splits. In order to appreciate the aims and achievements of modern day ‘mainstream’ republicanism, and the continued actions of the dissidents, it is important to first of all understand and contrast the actions and attitudes of the movement today with that of the vast majority of republicans in the late ’60s and ’70s.¹⁵ The present study utilizes the cases of the splits to achieve this understanding. In order to carry out this the analysis has aimed to answer three core questions.

1Why did each of the splits take place when they did?

2How did each of the splits take place?

3What were the effects of the splits?

A decade of centenaries: A decade of violence?

In 2012 the people of Ireland entered into what can be regarded as a decade of centenaries. One hundred years previous to this Ireland was going through some of the most defining events of its history. Change was afoot. The Irish Home Rule Movement born in the 1870s was gaining momentum in their demands for self-government and the repeal of the Act of Union of 1800. However, just...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• 1 Towards 2016
• 2 The affirmation of Behan?
• 3 The tinder piles up
• 4 The Officials split again
• 5 The beginning of the end
• 6 The steps into peace
• 7 United in their division, divided in their unity
• Appendix A: Table of interviews
• Index