Spent the morning in Dublin today, and in the course of conversations there someone brought the distinctions that might be made between Republicanism and Nationalism. The latter is almost extinct in the Republic these days. Here for instance, courtesy of Belfast Unicorn , is a fascinating clipping from George Orwell who it must be admitted had it in for nationalism :.
A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist — that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating — but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade.
But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The usefulness of a concept which can contain such opposing meanings at the one time is doubtful. But this may be said to be not primarily a conceptual so much as a terminological dilemma and not altogether a contingent one , of which more below. Ironically, the nationalist part of the [national] 6 movement [! And, one might add, the persons who govern it. That may be so semantically, but how are they to be made politically concrete other than by resting on the nation?
Or are we back to Austro-Marxism with its hope of transmogrifying an empire into a republic with whatever contemporary equivalent is chosen—the EU perhaps? Once more, false antithesis raises its head. One has rights both as a member of a nation and as a citizen, and the two cannot be divorced if democracy is to be fulfilled in the real world. One has rights as an Irish citizen or as a French citizen, and so on.
Some of these rights are human and universal freedom of conscience , others are more particular use of a specific language. One wonders where this leaves the United Nations and its premise of self-determination? Of course, nations and states, given geographic and demographic factors, cannot always be congruent, even after self-determination, and the rights of national minorities, where they exist, should be respected.
But that does not take away from the fact that, in the modern world, the nation is the principal determinant of the state. Insofar as it is a protest against forced homogeneity and intolerance, that is unobjectionable. However, as it stands, the statement perpetuates the failure to distinguish between the approaches of right and left-wing nationalism.
It is true that, whatever about its origins, nationalism as a term has by now, unfortunately, owing to sloppy usage in both academia and journalism, become convoluted for many in its general significance. This is not entirely accidental. It may be that, in global political discourse, such a point of required qualification has been reached. An excellent example in international relations of convenient obfuscation was when Britain attacked Egypt in and said it was standing up to nationalism in much the same way as it had stood up to Hitler!
We must also be conscious of a usage deriving specifically from Irish history. But the nomenclature of parties or constellations of same should not bedevil political analysis. The fact is that Redmond was a home rule nationalist, Griffith a duo-monarchical nationalist, Pearse a democratic republican nationalist, and Connolly a socialist republican nationalist.
They were not replicating this act, however, to overcome arbitrary power in and of itself, but for a different reason — to assert Irish nationhood. Would Irish unification in current circumstances be anti-republican? In the book chapter, I argue that Irish unification is one option among many to satisfy republican principles in the case of Northern Ireland. From the perspective of republican liberty, neither of these options is definitively more desirable than the other.
What I think needs to be up for discussion is whether Northern Ireland would still exist as a devolved entity within a unified Irish state, if unification should serve as a moment to adopt a new constitution for the whole island, and how political relationships with Britain would be maintained in this scenario.
Could continuing British sovereignty over Northern Ireland satisfy republican principles? If so what would need to change? This is because devolution does not apply to all issues, and because Northern Ireland representatives rarely, if ever, take part in forming and directing the UK government.
The UK constitution would need to change to overcome this arbitrary power. This could be through a mixture of reforms including the UK changing to a proportional electoral system, the federalisation of the state — including England into constituent regions — along with the associated decentralisation of economic power from outside of the south-east of England. You raise the intriguing prospect of a unionist republicanism emerging. What exactly would that look like?
Would it mean, for example, advocating for the abolition of the British monarchy to facilitate UK federalism? It is possible, though, that unionists could adopt a republican language to articulate and defend the union. This would involve criticism of the status quo, but it would be criticism intended to strengthen the union — a union which is at present encouraging some in Northern Ireland to consider reunification when they had not before. However, I only wish to argue that the union can be articulated in these terms.
Indeed, I suspect that if it were, this would encourage Irish nationalists to reimagine and articulate a united Ireland in terms of republican liberty. In honour of Irish Times Food Month, a query into all manner of musical victuals. See a sample. Exclusive competitions and restaurant offers, plus reviews, the latest food and drink news, recipes and lots more. Please update your payment details to keep enjoying your Irish Times subscription.
0コメント