The Truth about the 1986 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis

national | rights, freedoms and repression | opinion/analysis Monday June 26, 2006 04:20 by Donnchadh

The birth of a British Constitutional Party

The story of how Gerry Adams tried to turn an eighty year old revolutionary movement into a British Constitutional party. How he broke the Sinn Féin constitution, created fake cumainn to give him fake votes and barred life long republicans from voting. How he managed to expel himself and his supporters from Sinn Féin membership. And, how a small band of republicans managed to keep the Sinn Féin constitution and traditional policy in tact.

The story of how Gerry Adams tried to turn an eighty year old revolutionary movement into a British Constitutional party. How he broke the Sinn Féin constitution, created fake cumainn to give him fake votes and barred life long republicans from voting. How he managed to expel himself and his supporters from Sinn Féin membership. And, how a small band of republicans managed to keep the Sinn Féin constitution and traditional policy in tact.

In 1986 Section 1b. of the Sinn Féin constitution read as follows:

“No person who is a member of any political party organisation or who approves of or supports the candidature of persons who, if elected, intend taking part in the proceedings of the Westminster or partitionist 26-County or 6-County parliaments or who approves of or supports the candidature of persons who sign any form or give any kind of written or verbal undertaking of intention to take their seats in these institutions, shall be admitted to membership or allowed to retain membership."

The Adams leadership put forward a motion, titled Resolution 162, at the 1986 Ard Fheis. Its wording was as follows:

RESOLUTION 162

THAT this Ard-Fheis drops its abstentionist attitude to Leinster House. Successful Sinn Fein parliamentary candidates in 26-County elections:

a. Shall attend Leinster House as directed by the Ard Chomhairle.

b. Shall not draw their salaries for personal use. (Parliamentary representatives shall be paid a Sinn Fein organiser’s subsidy, and the Leinster House salary shall be divided at the direction of the Ard Chomhairle to defray national and constituency expenses.)

To accommodate this change, the Constitution and Rules be amended as follows:

That Section 1b of the Constitution be amended to read:

No person who is a member of any political party organisation or who approves of or supports the candidature of persons who, if elected, intend taking part in the proceedings of the Westminster or partitionist 6-County parliaments or who approves of or supports the candidature of persons who sign any form or give any kind of written or verbal undertaking of intention to take their seats in these institutions, shall be admitted to membership or allowed to retain membership.

Motion 162 supports and approves of the candidature of persons who, if elected, would be of the intention to take their seats in certain circumstances i.e. on the direction of the Ard Chomhairle. Obviously, Motion 162 infringes Section 1b. Section 1b. was in effect at the time this Resolution was presented. Its clear that Adams made a mistake in procedure. He should have sought a majority decision to amend Section 1b. in 1986 and returned in 1987 to propose entering Leinster House. Trying to amend Section 1b. and propose taking seats in the “partitionist 26-County Parliament” in the same Resolution was a logical impossibility.

Can anybody say that the wording:

“That this Ard-Fheis drops its abstentionist attitude to Leinster House. Successful Sinn Fein parliamentary candidates in 26-County elections:

a. Shall attend Leinster House as directed by the Ard Chomhairle”

does not constitute the supporting and approving of the candidature of persons who intend to take their seats in Leinster House as directed by the Ard Chomhairle?
Clearly Adams was in breach of Section 1b. and according to that section he had expelled himself, and all those who voted for Resolution 162.

Brian Feeney, in his book, Sinn Féin 100 Turbulent Years, puts forward the argument that Adams had managed to bypass Section 1b, by introducing a motion in 1983 allowing the “discussion” of any aspect of the Sinn Féin constitution. This change may indeed have facilitated debate on abstentionism but it did not infringe on the content or effect of Section 1b in any way. To discuss something is not the same as formally proposing or supporting it. For example, conventions are held regularly where drug addiction is discussed without any of the delegates proposing or supporting it. In fact the line Adams added in 1983 was superfluous, as the Sinn Féin constitution had never banned the “discussion” of anything – just the “approving” and “supporting” of taking seats in named partitionist parliaments.

Of course its not illegal to amend or remove section 1b. Section 1b. bans the approval or support of candidates who intend to take seats in British assemblies. It can be removed or amended at any Ard Fheis by a two thirds majority. The reason for doing so could be many. Perhaps delegates might feel that it implies that they cannot be trusted to be loyal to the Republic. In fact its not necessary, according to the constitution, to give any reason. But you cant amend or remove section 1b. in the same resolution as you support and approve of entering Leinster House, as Resolution 162 tried to do. Once section 1b. has been removed, then, at the next Ard Fheis its possible to propose entering any assembly you want.

So it takes a minimum of two years, two Ard Fheiseanna. Year one amend or delete Section 1b. then year two you can propose to enter any assembly you want. Adams tried to amend section 1b. and propose entering Leinster House in the same Resolution 162.

Of course Adams had good reason not to want the process to take two years – giving people too much time to think of the implications would not have suited his cause.

Another point at which Adams broke the constitution was that the constitution states that all cumainn must recieve three months notice of a motion addressing a policy change at an Ard Fheis. Cumainn were told of Resolution 162 in early October - the Ard Fheis began on October 31th.

The breaking of rules didn’t end here. In one famous case, the University College Dublin cumann, the rules were completely ignored. The rule stated that a member had to be a member for at least three months before they were allowed to take part in decisions. In UCD an "observer" from Belfast insisted that three new members who had only been in the cumann for a couple of weeks be allowed to vote. This visitor implied that he was acting with the authority of PIRA and that anyone who voted against supporting Resolution 162 would be voting against PIRA. Naturally, the vote was carried. It also could be noted that life long members like Seán Keenan, who had been voted honorary life long president of Derry Sinn Féin, was turned away at the door of the Ard Fheis because it was know that he rejected Resolution 162. Tony Ruane, an honorary vice president for life, who had been Sinn Féin national treasurer for decades, was also refused entry for the same reason.

However breaking the rules of the constitution alone would not have secured victory for Adams in 1986.

Its interesting to look at the attempt of Adams and co. to weaken abstensionism at the 1985 Ard Fheis. Comhairle Limistéir Bhaile Átha Cliath put forward a motion proposing that abstensionism “be viewed as a tactic and not as a principle.” Adams supporters Danny Morrison, Tom Hartley and Seán Crowe were the main speakers in favour. The motion was rejected by 181 votes against to 161 in favour. That means that there were 342 delegates representing 171 cumainn. This was a serious setback for Adams. To drop absentionism on these numbers he would need to change the vote of 60 delegates. That would have taken years if he had played by the rules. So what did Adams do? Besides intimidation of existing cumainn, merging of hostile cumainn and just plain refusing to let hostile voices into the Ard Fheis? Well, he just created over a hundred new, fake, paper cumainn. If we look at the figures of the vote in 1986 on Resolution 162: 429 in favour and 161 against. That means a total number of 590. What? There were now 295 cumainn. 124 new cumainn??? In the space of a year? And they all supported Resolution 162? And even stranger these 124 new cumainn just disappeared in 1987, because at the 1987 PSF Ard Fheis the numbers were back to about 340 delegates.

Given the above, its obvious that many comentators operate on the false premise that a legal and democratic vote was held on Resolution 162 and that the losers of that vote went on to form a “splinter” group known as Republican Sinn Féin. It would be more accurate to describe RSF as the “remainder” of the Sinn Féin party after an unscrupulous leadership subverted the party’s constitution for their own ends. A group of members who had not broken the contitution by supporting Resolution 162 walked out of the Mansion House. They reconvened the 1986 Ard Fheis at the West County Hotel in Chapelizod, west county Dublin, with the constitution still intact. The traditional Sinn Féin policy of giving its allegiance to the 32 county Republic, and refusing to recognise all British created assemblies continues. At that, reconvened, Ard fheis the word “Republican” was added to the party’s name to emphasise the republican beliefs of the party as opposed to the new party of self expelled ex Sinn Féin members which Adams led into the British Monarchist Constitution.