Dreaming of a united Irish Opposition Movement

national | politics / elections | opinion/analysis

Friday June 04, 2004 21:04

by Brian Nugent

bnugent at tinet dot ie

Calling for a more co-ordinated approach by the various activist groups and small parties that seem to agree on the big issues and showing one way that hopefully ,maybe, it could be done.

A few weeks ago a dubliner writing here was saying that he was going to vote for the Socialist Party , the Green Party and Sinn Fein in the coming election and advised all those who hold the general activist beliefs (against the growing inequality in Ireland and the third world , against the war etc ) to do the same .He acknowledged that some anarchists had no faith in voting but he felt that realistically having people like Patricia McKenna and Joe Higgins as public representatives was better than having the others. What I would put to indymedia readers is that there is some kind of consensus that if the disparate groups that say oppose the Iraq war and generally agree on most of the other issues could come together and form a more united opposition movement that it would create a bigger impact than they are currently making as separate groups. Firstly here are some problems that I heard mentioned and need to be addressed before this could take off the ground:

1) If you ask people involved in some of the groups they will tell you that they already co-operate with many different groups in issues of mutual concern and will continue to do so. Hence to a degree they dont see the need for more unity. Of course in practise the ad hoc groups that have been formed dont get much public recognition because they change every time for every march and issue so that the (not inconsiderable) size and following that many of these of these groups command together is not really noticed by the mass of the people. Only a group that would have say a recognisable logo, flag etc and is visibly part of the organising of most marches , referendum campaigns , whatever, will get noticed and build up a kind of momentum.

2) That each party and grouping has their own identity and philosophy which can not be glossed over or subsumed into some watered down lowest common denominator in a wider grouping. The structure that I propose I dont think carries that risk, no party would be asked to sign up to a particular philosophy and so wont have lost sight of their own.

3) A subterranean reason that I think is very real but maybe not often mentioned as such is that people are wary about the motivations of some groups out there in the left in irish politics and possibly feel that some of them are not what they seem.Especially those groups which seem to want to set up cooperative structures that maybe they would then hope to control.In short no group wants to be subjected to a kind of giant trollerisation by groups who would be working to control and disrupt the opposition groups on behalf of some higher (as in lower) agenda .If you read indymedia articles on the experience some groups had in one of the anti-war groupings you can see what I mean. And yes I dont think they are paranoid, as it is on newsgroups then so it is in real life for some opposition groups and they are understandably wary .Again when you see the structure of the proposed united group that I put forward you can see hopefully that it doesnt allow for some group to manipulate the rest. It would not have a leader or all powerful governing council or anything like that.

The structure of the party would be that any group/individual can join and no person/group can be expelled for any reason.
So yes that means that the anti-immigration groups and axe murders anonymous can join! This is not the great problem it might seem though , its very unlikely any of parties like that would get any of their policies through by consensus and in practice any very right wing party is unlikely to want to join. I know that Michael Lowry and other politicians are in the technical group but I dont see anything wrong with that, we should have a welcoming attitude to anybody who wants to make a difference and no doubt some of the media demonised groups/people are not as bad as all that and I think the general public will recognise that and appreciate the freedom of speech principles that this rule enshrines. As regards not expelling people that will lead to having to listen to a lot of trolling at meetings and other problems but if indymedia and other groups can survive and still hold to free speech then I think this party can do it. After a while I think people do get educated as to these things and the trolling becomes less effective. I also wouldnt worry about sneering in the media about people they dislike, the general public can grasp that rule and understand it after a while.

Decisions made at any level would be by consensus. Consensus incidentally in this way is not unanimity (it cannot be unanimity because of trolling if nothing else) and its certainly not the block majority voting that you have in the established party conferences. I think its somewhere in between where a given group can see clearly that a way forward has been agreed by the vast bulk of the people present .I think this already works in many parties like the Dublin Grassroots Network, the Green Party and I think Sinn Fein quite well, its a perfectly practical way of proceeding despite what some might claim. (Im sure people from those groups that use consensus could elaborate on how it works if asked).

To get this up and running what I propose in short is that the activist groups join with the small parties and independents in the dail and put some life into the moribund structures of the technical group.( There that surprised you didnt it?.lol......)
The technical group is one of the largest Irish political parties (I think the third largest after FF and FG), its the name of the group founded by the independents, SF, the Greens and Joe Higgins of the socialist party which they created in order to get around the rules that the big parties had put in place to deny the small parties speaking time in the Dail.
So maybe somehow Tony Gregory (the chief whip of the technical group) could be persuaded to call a national conference of the technical group inviting both all the parties already affiliated to it and the various activist groups to come and see whether or not there could be agreement to establish some permanent structures for a combined Irish opposition movement. (And maybe might change the name from the technical group to some name like the Irish Opposition Movement or something like that.) Of course each party is different and with their own policies. What this structure is about is just organising a central grouping that could be useful to co-ordinate matters where the individual parties were broadly in agreement. The point is that those parties ARE in agreement on so many matters. A short time ago I was listening to Gerry Adams totally condemning the US military using Shannon which is so far as I know exactly what all these other groups believe.
In other words you are creating a permanent national structure that can be used where the parties want to run a combined campaign and I strongly believe they will find themselves agreeing on issues far more often than they might realise.
Say these structures :

1) An annual combined conference like the first one. I think all can see that such a conference could be a pretty exciting and heartening exchange of views away from the controlled dail and the navel gazing of the small conferences of the individual parties. The conference would issue the results of their deliberations as the consensus of their debates.

2) A central party newspaper. Maybe with sections that would allow editorial independence given to the various groups. Clearly that would have immediately quite a big circulation and again much better than each individual group can muster. If there is one thing everybody agrees on is misrepresentation in the media....

3) Possibly some combined offices / phone numbers distributed around the country. That way if the technical group was organising anything together people would know where to go to find out about it and who to ask .Might be particularly helpful in organising transport together. Again all these parties together could do a lot more in this way than the parties separately.

4) Hopefully agreement could be reached on a combined manifesto prior to a general election and also an agreed document on any referendum. But this would be far down the road as I see it. So possibly in the long term then when canvassing in a general election maybe an individual party would say this is the manifesto of the Irish Opposition Movement/Technical Group that we are joined with but also here is our own manifesto which shows where we are coming from and the kind of influence we exert within the technical group. It means then that no party or group would ever be signing away all its principles or policies .It would just be combining them (in this clearly temporary fashion) where a united stand in a larger group would be helpful. I stress again that this step should only be taken down the road if people were comfortable with this group and arrangement, if no manifesto can be agreed it doesnt mean that the other structures couldn?t work very well IMHO.

The various parties could then put a logo on their posters saying "affiliated with the Irish Opposition Movement" or some such. Also if agreement was reached then referendum campaigns could be run and seen to be run by that party. Similarly for marches and protests, and this should show the people at large that there is an organised, united, and large group of people out there trying to change the system.
Furthermore this grouping could be used to get around the very strenuous rules that the main political parties have put in place hindering independents from running in elections. You can read about those serious problems here. Instead people can run as a member of this new party (a member of a political party doesnt have to go through the bureaucratic nightmare described).The way it would work anybody can ask and would be permitted to run as a member of this party and again sure axe murders could run therefore but I think it work out as I described above about the party in general. I think the general public would see that this loose arrangement would be a genuine step in favour of free speech and against the blatantly arrogant attempt of the main political parties to stifle same. And of course anyway the decision of who gets elected is therefore left up to the electorate.

The way I see it is that it would evolve as a movement with various weapons at its disposal to highlight and oppose the problems in the current system. It would have people going on marches as now and also have people in the dail with both aspects of opposition feeding off and helping one another. It would in that sense be the same as the great groups like the repeal movement (obviously Daniel O Connell contested all those elections while at the same time he made his point with monster meetings et al ) and the "plan of campaign" of Michael Davitt which worked alongside the parliamentary efforts of Parnell. So its not "either or" between direct action/street politics and normal parliamentary politics.

Here is my very short bio. of some of the smaller parties and how I think they would gain from such a grouping :

Sinn Fein
Clearly they cannot talk about the price of a pint without being drowned in negative coverage about a one sided view of the northern conflict. It therefore might help the party to be part of a wider grouping where no particular spokesperson for such a party can be tarred with the terrorism brush as easily and so allow their party members to articulate all the other issues.

Green Party
The party closest to the environmental activist groups around the country and with a party structure of seeking consensus and not having a central leader up until recently and so hopefully comfortable with the party structure that I propose.

Dublin Grassroots Network
Which is already a central co-ordinating body for some of the smaller groups and with as far as I know a structure virtually identical to what I propose and so maybe might be in favour of such a bigger grouping.

Socialist Party
(I believe this party grew out of a group that were originally expelled from the labour party for being too left wing allegedly and includes Joe Higgins TD). Their direct action attempt that they made with the bin tax revolt has I suppose had mixed results but now that the St Vincent de Paul are saying that the charges are causing real hardship for many poor people (who predictably are not getting relief from the waivers that they were supposed to get) their attempts on this subject are probably quite widely appreciated in retrospect. Maybe they will agree that the key to protest movements and pickets etc just as much as for political parties is simply weight in numbers. They couldnt hope to arrest everyone if a larger group was involved in those pickets. Clearly the best way to get large numbers is to cooperate with these other groups the vast majority of whom I suspect are also very much on the same side as regards the bin tax etc.

Anarchist Groups
The problem here is that unlike many of the other parties some in the anarchist groups oppose elections per se because it fosters a kind of dependence culture on the state and politicians. Personally I think the time has long gone when people had great faith in the current electoral system and I think there is a lot of agreement out there that it doesnt really work. What I would point out is that a group like the proposed one is something for every party to use as much as it wishes. So any group that doesn?t want to help out in electoral stuff certainly doesnt have to, nor do they have to put up candidates themselves or anything like that. On the other hand they might feel comfortable assisting in organising marches and referendum campaigns.

So thats my tuppence hapenny , hopefully it might be possible......

save preference

Comments (18 of 18)

Jump To Comment:

misprint

Fri Jun 04, 2004 21:13

Here is the Url I meant to add above where pointing out the strenous rules independents have to use in going for election these days.
http://www.liamog.com/nomination.htm

Nice dream but...

by Ois - WSM

Fri Jun 04, 2004 22:01

I've no major problem with what you're proposing. I'd be skepticla of any initiative coming from parliamentary parties but, if it was organised non-hierarchically and it allowed for diverging opinions and tactics and different member organisation did not use the movement merely to score new members and votes. In other words as long as there was no oppurtunism in the organisation, then it could work really well. This organisation how ever can never be created for a few reasons.

1) A part of leninist politics is to organise according to 'demnocratic centralism'. That means decisions get made by the central committee of the organisation and not by the general membership. So you can count out the WP, the SWP, the SP, the SD, the CPI etc. etc.
2) The green party would never advocate class war politics and will always condemn illegal politicla actions. This means that anarchists at least would never be able organised in general organisation with them.
3) Sinn Fein are nationalists, anarchists are anti-nationalists.
4) The Greens are pacifist, Sinn Fein aren't.

These problems are to large to allow for a general left wing organisation to be formed, in my opinion.

Those who hold "the general activist beliefs"!

by David C.

Fri Jun 04, 2004 22:50

"The General Activist Beliefs"!!!!

I love that term!! TGAB!!! Is that like a manifesto of looney fringe cause-of-the-day gibberish? Ha ha ha ha!!! If you guys weren't such a crippling pestilence on real social change then this would be even funnier...

More co-ordination between fringe groups would maximize the impact of the 0.05% of the population that share your views. More power to you.

Thank christ for democracy. Its messy, but it works...

sadly not being there I could not take part

by interested reader

Fri Jun 04, 2004 23:14

but it's music to my ears.
play on please, and sing and dance.

Activist Groups

by Utopia

Sat Jun 05, 2004 01:37

It's a nice idea, but not really fleshed out at all and vague, as demonstrated by the use of the term "activist groups" to refer to anything you think is leftist. Fianna Fail is an "activist group", as is the Anti-Immigration Platform, as is the group of people who were putting racist posters up in Dublin a while ago, who were probably neo-Nazis.

If you're going to propose an alliance of the left (and, let's face it, it's hardly an original suggestion), you'd want to put together a proposal that is a bit clearer than this.

Replying to the comments...

Sat Jun 05, 2004 04:06

I thought i might reply to some of the comments , from Ois :
Sure it should be non hierarchial and not some established parties publicty stunt etc.thats why id aim for only those like the technical group and the "activists"..not the larger parties...Anyhow we agree it has to be this type of non hierarchial thing after all there is clearly no way these groups are going to throw in their lot with some group that would start dictating to them anyhow...

"1) A part of leninist politics is to organise according to 'demnocratic centralism'....... So you can count out the WP, the SWP, the SP, the SD, the CPI etc. etc."

Of course i do agree you have problems like that but maybe its foolish to generalise to much about all those groups?.I think there are people there who dont just take orders from the centre and can I think agree with all the other people on the big issues and would cooperate on them on it.And yes I know it could mean that some of these groups would just not cooperate with a non hierarchial thing like this but still I think at least some might.

"2) The green party would never advocate class war politics and will always condemn illegal politicla actions. This means that anarchists at least would never be able organised in general organisation with them."

The question is would they agree on a common platform on specific issues not do they agree with a given specific political philosophy.Hence would they co-operate on a strong statement against shannon?on access to third level what have you....I dont think there is any great conflict there when you go from the theoretical to the specific and that approach might go down well with the general public who rarely go in for those kind of "theological" political arguments anyway.

"3) Sinn Fein are nationalists, anarchists are anti-nationalists. "
I would make the same point and look at a given issue on Ulster politics.Say such a conference discussed the merits of a South african style truth and reconciliation commission with a strong emphasis on getting the various states british irish and american to come clean with files and operatives about what they were really up to this last 30 years or so.Would sinn fein and anarchists agree on that?.Would it be a worthwhile step or some wishy washy watered down proposal of a type that some would say only those parties could agree to?.No i would say to you.And thats what you find when you give the theorising a bit of a day off?.People will agree more easily than i think is often assumed.I think so anyhow.......

"4) The Greens are pacifist, Sinn Fein aren't."

If the clear public statements by sinn fein recently are to be believed then its clear both those parties strongly oppose the US in agree and doubtless in any other country they might invade and thats the essential element in getting an agreed position on the matter.

In any case I hope you are being too pessismistic but i guess we can just try?.We have to ?i cannot see anything major happening unless we have a visible , big kinda united group?..maybe your right......

Utopia

"It's a nice idea, but not really fleshed out at all and vague, as demonstrated by the use of the term "activist groups" to refer to anything you think is leftist."

I know its not a perfect phrase , i just couldnt think of a better one and like at least you can see who it is i am referring to?

"If you're going to propose an alliance of the left (and, let's face it, it's hardly an original suggestion), you'd want to put together a proposal that is a bit clearer than this."

i think you are right its not a very original notion as i said if you look on the net or elsewhere you can see lots of people feel that something needs to be done here , i just thought that going with the technical group thing might be a good practical start.And yes sure its not all fleshed out but i would imagine you couldnt do that till you see what the various parties would be prepared to agree to at such a conference.But just look at so many issues and campaigns recently , the nice one , the citizenship referendum , shannon, probably the Eu constitution and u can see all those groups on the one side and often only those groups with the establishment lined up solidly on the other side .So it would not be difficult to see that there could be quite a detailed and effective unified programme agreed to be all those parties , i havent drawn up such a thing but im sure it could be done.Sticking to specifics as i say and not being drawn on largely theoretical things that would seperate them.

Mny thanks for your comments in any case....

another error i made ..:-)

Sat Jun 05, 2004 04:12

Iraq i meant to say instead of agree above....ims dyslexic tonite......lol

Know you didn't mean any harm

by Finicky

Sat Jun 05, 2004 11:01

Hi Brian,

Know you don't mean any harm, but dyslexia is a disability, not something you get when you're tired and not something to laugh about. Ten per cent of the population have it and it's much more complex than spelling mistakes.

By the way, I agree fundamentally with what you're saying and think its a breath of fresh air. A lot of party-political differences on the left are manufactured or over-emphasised.

Take the SF are nationalists vs anti-nationalist anarchist argument. SF are actually republicans i.e. they want a more participative democracy and are always talking about building local democracy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't stronger local democracy and people power, plus the SF "equality" mantra cognate to what anarchists want?

Dyslexia is a disabilty. But not all letter confusions are dyslexic

by very close details there - understanding cogntivite processes (ersatz pirates)

Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:46

in that it is associated with young learning difficulties, however letter or spelling confusion is not only a symptom of dyslexia alone.
Many people confuse letters, especially if typing quickly, and it is interesting to compare typing slips with written hand.
Many recreational drugs, can effect the the centre of the brain that deals with this thing, so that youngsters with "chemical hangover" show a whole facet of disabilities on a Sunday morning, but are generally back to normal by Monday.
Furthermore sinistrals (or lefthanders) are noted for letter confusion, but do not display "full dyslexia". I'm sinistral, and type quickly and sometimes the extent of my letter confusion amazes me, yet it never occurs when I write by hand which is probably due to "typing" and "writing" being controlled by different sections of the brain. Theoretically someone has suferred brain damage or lesions to the "writing centre" could go on typing which really is very odd if you think about it. Anyway dyslexia like many other learning disabilities whether mild or severe continues to be shrouded in ignorance and prejudice to the detriment of an egalitarian society.

"all children learn differently it's no reflection of intelligence".

im against the war

by pc

Sat Jun 05, 2004 18:23

but fundamentally not in agreement with socialist idealogy

theres brian green in my constituency i worked with the guy for a few months intelligent, hard working, doesn't bother with the nonsense... , not one bit of smarm in him, of course we didn't dicuss politics i wasn't into it at the time... i won't be voting for him though cos of socialists obsession with defining people by class rather then the qualtiy of the man

not even as the lesser of two evils

A reply to a reply

Sat Jun 05, 2004 20:15

http://struggle.ws/dgn

Brian wrote, "The question is would they agree on a common platform on specific issues not do they agree with a given specific political philosophy. Hence would they co-operate on a strong statement against Shannon? On access to third level what have you"

You admitted earlier that groups 'already co-operate with many different groups in issues of mutual concern and will continue to do so'. So what I'd presumed you were talking about was a general left wing organisation, as opposed to an organisation based around a specific issue or two.

I don't see how a multi-issue organisation that did not have a general theoretical base could operate.

Nationalism

This is not north specific. Anarchists hold the same contempt for nationalism that we do for racism. Anarchists believe that ethnicity should not be a political issue. When we campaign for racial and national liberation, we are campaigning because people should not be politically divided because of their ethnicity. Nationalists do think that people should be divided according to their nationality. This is not something that can be brushed over.

Pacifism

When I wrote, "The Greens are pacifist, Sinn Fein aren't." I wasn't talking about Iraq. It was my not so subtle attempt at saying that Greens will never unite with Sinn Fein because of Sinn Fein's perceived links with the IRA.

Leninism

Brian wrote "maybe its foolish to generalise to much about all those groups". Sorry Brian it's not a generalisation. Leninists=Leninists, I think we can all agree on that. And an essential part of Leninist theory is the idea of 'democratic centralism'. If you don't believe in organising in a democratic centralist manner, then you're not a Leninist. And the SWP, the SP, the SD, the CPI etc. etc are all self-proclaimed Leninist organisations.

Brian, I think you're heart is very much in the right place but left wing politics is about change. And advocating change without explaining what change you want will get us nowhere. Nor will advocating change without explaining how it could be brought about get us anywhere. To bring about any kind of change some degree of theoretical and tactical unity is needed. For single-issue campaigns such as opposition to the Iraq war or opposition to the bin tax, theoretical and tactical unity is definitely achievable if the campaign is run democratically. That kind of unity for a general organisation is more difficult to achieve.

One way of achieving unity is by setting down some basic principles around which people from different political backgrounds can unite and work together. The only attempt that is being made in Ireland at the moment to achieve that kind of unity is with the Grassroots Gathering.

The Grassroots Gathering aims towards a network, which would:
- Be based on the principle that people should control their own lives and work together as equals, as part of how we work as well as what we are working towards.

- Within the network this means rejecting top-down and state-centred forms of organisation (hierarchical, authoritarian, expert-based, Leninist etc.) We need a network that's open, decentralised, and really democratic.

- Call for solutions that involve ordinary people controlling their own lives and having the resources to do so: the abolition, not reform, of global bodies like the World Bank and WTO, and a challenge to underlying structures of power and inequality.

- Organise for the control of the workplace by those who work there.

- Call for the control of communities by the people who live there.

- Argue for a sustainable environmental, economic and social system, agreed by the people of the planet.

- Working together in ways, which are accessible to ordinary people, particularly women and working-class people, rather than reproducing feelings of disempowerment and alienation within our own network.

If you agree with these basic principles then you belong in the Grassroots. I'm sad to say it's as close as you're going to get to a united Irish left.

sure isn't disunity the not a good thing

Sun Jun 06, 2004 02:10

if we all agreed we be in trouble i thought that was the point... not to put on an united _front_ but say what we think not to be the biggest but the most earnest

i don't think disunity is a problem

Ultra Nationalist

by Drunk on power

Mon Jun 07, 2004 13:08

Sinn Fein are republican. The republican values that Sinn Fein hold include nationalist, feminist and socialist beliefs. The nationalist values that Sinn Fein have are not the values that oisin would think they do. They reflect sinn feins desire for self determination over the nation of ireland but the definition of the nation is much greater than the exclusionary right wing "four green fields" nationalism that has become symbolic of Fianna Fail's development since the civil war

Re: Drunk on Power

Mon Jun 07, 2004 15:55

All I said were that Sinn Féin are nationalists. And anarchists don't think that people shouldn't be divided according to their ethnicity. Unless you believe nations are not ethnic groups, then I was right about what I said about Sinn Fein.

If you do assert that nations are not ethnic groups think about what you are saying. If nations are not ethnic groups then what are they? Socio-economic classes? No I don't think so. Regional groups? Maybe, but if so then you are agreeing with "the exclusionary right wing "four green fields" nationalism that has become symbolic of Fianna Fail". You are also arguing that there is as much a Leinster nation, a Dublin nation, a ballybrack nation or a wyattville road nation as there is an Irish nation.

Also please don't confuse ethnic with racial. I am not and would never call Sinn Fein racist. They are very far from racist, but they are nationalist. And as such argue that the people of the world should be divided according to what their nationality is. Anarchists strongly disagree.

Also don't confuse division with difference. I'm a proud Irishman and am different to an English man, and I will never tolerate anyone who says I am the same as an English man, because I'm not. But, that doesn't mean that Irishmen and English men should be politically divided. I'm also a man, and not a woman, and I'm proud of that difference and I will never tolerate anyone who says I am the same as a woman, because I'm not. But, that doesn't mean that men and women should be politically divided. I hope you see what I'm saying.

Reply to a X 4

Tue Jun 08, 2004 02:55

I personally believe there are lots of people put off by the socialist type rhetoric , I think they feel shouted down in trying to discuss things by having the subject railroaded into left /right stuff.Thats why I didnt use the phrase left or socialist above and I dont believe such a group should be called something using that language.That is not to say for a second that I dont think that modern ireland dosent reflect all too much the dickensian world that largely gave rise to those philosopies.I just think we should debate the issues open mindedly and not corrupt the flow of a discussion by having to agree an overall position/philosophy before everybody gets a chance to put their case.

Drunk on Power (for our estemmed international audience , both of you :-) , he is referring to a whiskey .....I hope!!)
look at the trouble Ois gets into generalising too much about the other parties!By the way specifically Ois I think you are wrong in saying that the green party will not go into such a conference with inter alia Sinn Fein , we are a long time past the ceasefires now and the general public realise that and my guess is that the green party does too.On the subject in question I think even Connolly would forgive us if we gave all this arcane philosophical stuff a day off once in a while to come together and debate the bigger issues.

Ois
So to clarify again what I am calling for in a sense is a kind of real world indymedia , a national meeting where pretty much all groups are invited to debate the issiues etc and maybe set up the structures outlined above.It would be run in a non hierarchial fashion (thats the meeting Im calling as well as any structures that might be set up then ) like the grassroots group to ensure that everybody gets their say and its not hijacked by a given group .So yes a given party or group could just use this central body when they feel they want to do a campaign together with other groups as you pointed out they already do.The beauty of having a central and permanent struture as opposed to ad hoc groups I outlined above (pools resources , gets more national recognition than the kalaediscope of names and initials that the general public are supposed to be follwing from one campaign to the next etc .) I would also add that for various minor issues that crop up it would be easier to use a permant standing structure that a brand new one because it takes too much time to set up an ad hoc one.So for example when the mayday protesters were treated so badly by the courts ( the very long term onerous bail conditions etc) you couldnt easily set up an adhoc group among all the various groups to campaign on that point.What you could do though is go to maybe a standing judicial group of this central body where you have an issue that you feel would get across all these groups and then get them to issue an agreed statement which would have great weight /publicity because so many people would be backing it.Do you think these groups would agree that the treatment of those people was very bad?Do you think that sinn fein or tony gregory (who was himself held in jail quite a while for protesting about street traders ) etc would defend the arbitrary use of police and judicial power?I think youd get that useful statement by consensus , and since you cannot realistically set up an ad hoc group on this issue alone so then you can see how my proposal fills a gap.
Where I disagree with you then is I think the people who would come to such a meeting should not be asked to sign up to a given philosophy prior to discussing thngs and in general it should focus on issues and debate them and not on philosophy.(Apart from the fact that they would agree on the democratic structure of the meeting as outlined ) .What I want to see is that it would be a really genuinely democratic forum where everybody on all sides of a given issue are invited.In fact to be honest I would invite the anti immigration groups to a discussion on immigration and their opponents on that question , I would invite all the different farmers groups , the ramblers groups etc etc debate everything in a genuinely democratic way and see whether or not their is concessus on the issues . Because I strongly think that you will find concessus on a vast range of stuff.And I am convinced that many groups do not get a hearing in a national forum like this and they would very much appreciate it and maybe would want to set up some permanent structures afterwards as outlined above , an annual meeting etc.

Of course the question is how do I think thats going to lead to some opposition movement ?It will I think because you will find that those small parties and groups around the country who are trying to highlight particular isses feel they are jammed up against an arrogant state putting them through a bureaucratic runaround , they try and often get no notice in the national media and the main parties simply dont want to know them. So once you have a real genuine group out there listening to all sides and seeing what people agree upon and what the facts are then that group becomes an alternative to the system and would feel like an opposition movement by default.There is simply no such forum right now out there.The debate that goes on in the big parties can be seen form the fact that john deasy couldnt remember a single discussion held in the FG front bench over the smoking ban and that would be the only place within that party where a thing like that could have been discussed.There is in reality virtually no democracy in that sense among any of those big political parties and precious little in the Dail itself (where deputies of all the main parties vote by whip according to their party position which as stated in the Deasy case they probably never even discussed as a group).Maybe this group could be called then the Irish National Congress (a permitted name now that Chalabi has redeemed himself these days!!).

Hence I called such a forum a real life indymedia .Indymedia is in some ways the central meeting place of the opposition groups and is an 'alternative ' to the established media etc but of course as far as I know the only rule in publishing on the newswire is pretty much that anybody can publish anything!It becomes an "alternative" type atmosphere because the other media is controlled , an opposition organ then by default and possibly also by its name.Also of course in practise if you are happy just feeding the celtic tiger then you will get your views published in newspapers and agreed to by the main parties and you arent going to bother with indymedia.The same being true then of my proposed forum. And yes it would mean that groups like the mens council that are posting here would be invited to state their case in this forum and I am convinced would probably get a consensus on at least some of the issues that they want highlighted like secret courts and the arbitrary powers of district justices which in fact is exactly what the protester groups are arguing against.(Note, as I talk about above, that trolling is going to a be a problem in such a group as it is in indymedia.) And notice we are having this discussion here in indymedia and for maybe the same reason why this forum would work. In otherwords all the different opposiotion groups have their own websites but its easy for people to have a central place that everybody knows about , its more interesting to see the discussions involving people of different viewpoints and among a greater audience and with a larger group of people involved logistics arent as bad.After all I notice at anarchomedia ( http://flag.blackened.net/af/Undercurrents/ ) there is a notice saying the webmasters had to close it down for a while because the couple of them running it are burnt out while on indymedia there are so many involved that they are actually designing software that groups in other countries are using.

So I stand over my call for such a conference , indeed maybe indymedia itself could hold a vote to see would there be interest in calling a meeting like that .I remain convinced it would be a good thing............

Drat , did it again.....

Tue Jun 08, 2004 03:10

[this is supposed to be the top of the comment that I have written just above.....my apologies.....:-)...]

Finicky
Many thanks for your comments !(and interested reader) there is a god!!:-) and Im sorry I got it mixed up about dyslexia , same to "very close".

pc--not wanting to curtail diversity
There is no fear of that , if the irish (real) opposition groups balkanise any further we will have go from near one man/woman parties to split personalities where one person runs 2 groups!!lol.Anyway I am only proposing a structure where people can cooperate more and a structure that the wider public can see functioning , can relate to , and then hopefully , join in with.

pc--not liking socialism

ISF

Tue Jun 08, 2004 19:09

Oh okay Brian I think I get what you're advocating. I had thought that you were calling for a new national organisation. It however seems that you are actually calling for a forum to be established in which different activist groups can debate and seek ground for further co-operation.

That's fair enough.

A similar effort, however, is already under way. A number of people have tried to get an Irish Social Forum set up. It had a conference in UCD a while back and as far as I know there is an active South-East Social Forum. The problem with the ISF is that it can't make decisions; this means that it is completely powerless and little more than a talking shop. In other countries another problem has arisen within Social Forums, due to the lack of internal organisation or cohesion various Leninist groups have used them opportunistically and as far as I know (but I could be wrong) anarchists have been banned from a number of Social Forums. Indeed, in France and Italy most libertarians, the political current represented in Ireland by the grassroots gatherings, have completely abandoned the Social Forums.

You seem to be proposing that an ISF-like body be set up that has the ability to make decisions, and through decision-making etc. it would develop into a cohesive and coherent movement. Yeah, I think such a forum would be great if it could be set up and if it could develop as you think it could. Unfortunately, I’m not as optimistic as you.

An Agreement

Fri Jun 11, 2004 21:55

Ois
I think we are in full accord then.What is needed I believe is an irish version of the World Social Forum but with the proviso that at those meetings decisions can be taken by concensus and if there is such a concensus that campaigns marches etc can be run in its name.And possibly set up the structures as pointed out.Which is unlike the current model and I see a lot of people are agreeing with you that they feel its in danger of becoming just a talking shop.
I didnt know much about it before you pointed it out and I think its very impressive.It shows that all you needed to bring these groups together was a wish to see a better world and huge numbers from disparate groups came (100,000 indians alone attended the last meeting ) and they agreed to organise the marches against the iraq war together.But not in the name of the WSF so it didnt get much recognition as a great movement and unfortunately I think there is not that many people who know about it and we dont get the visible size and unity that I thnk is needed.
The irish meeting you talked about looks very interesting too , now if they just do that all over again but with the decision making as described :-) .Which btw guarantees the audience participation that I see people are looking for , since to get consensus you have to see what the participants views are.Finally of course I completely agree that whatever structure is formed the all important goal is to stop it being controlled by any one group for whatever reason. Thats why I thought too not being able to expell people was a helpfull rule , although no doubt it comes with its own problems as described.

Now that we have nothing left to argue about , unfortunately ! , I will just put some links up about the forum to preach to the other 5 million or so inhabitants of this green isle who havent seen the light yet :

opening ceremony this year :
http://india.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/208464.shtml

Naomi Klein on the WSF :
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/wsf/fete.htm

they are moving that way anyway see :
http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/dinamic.asp?pagina=cartainicial_ing

including :
"1. Facilitate the aggregate of proposals for Workshops and Seminars
2. Consultation to formulate the basic thematic axes of the WSF 2005 programme
3. Working Groups to facilitate the aggregate of proposals
4. "Large events" finalised through the consultations
5. Autonomy and diversity guaranteed in the entire process "

The irish one of last year :
http://www.irishsocialforum.org/

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Dreaming of a united Irish Opposition Movement

Comments (18 of 18)