Talk:Abstentionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid-importance for Irish Republicanism-related articles.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] A worldwide view?

A quick Google search suggests that the word 'abstentionism', with the meaning given here, has only ever been used in Ireland. Elsewhere, as far as I can see, it means abstaining from voting, or voting 'none of the above'.
Perhaps, instead of trying to give a worldwide view, the article should begin with a statement along the lines of "Abstentionism is a political strategy used in Ireland..."
Scolaire 17:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Attacked" or "clashed"

The Nationalist Party withdrew from opposition "after the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) attacked civil rights marchers in Derry on 5 October 1968" or "after the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) clashed with civil rights demonstrators in Derry on 5 October 1968"? Well, the second wording is a nonsense - a "clash" between police and demonstrators is not a reason for withdrawing from opposition. Is the first wording POV? According to the Cameron report, the police "broke ranks and used their batons indiscriminately on people in Duke Street." That sounds like an "attack" to me. I would be open to discussing an alternative wording, but one that acknowledges the facts. Scolaire (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that the police and demonstrators clashed. Using a word like "attacked" is too evocative - the article isn't even about what the police and demonstrators did, nor the manner in which they did it. If the reader wants to know what happened, they click the link to the article about the incident and read further.
A citation that the events of that day influenced the Nationalist Party's decision to abstain would be useful by the way, if you have it. --90.197.80.125 (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know that that is a fact. The fact, as I recall, is that the marchers - people who had assembled for a march, not a demonstration - stopped at a police cordon and asked to be let through, and were batonned for their pains. Now, "attacked" may be evocative (did you mean emotive?) but it is factual; if police hit people who were not hitting them - as Cameron says they did - then there was no clash. End of story. For a citation that the events of the day influenced the Nationalist Party's decision see "Holding the Ground: The Nationalist Party in Northern Ireland, 1945-1972" on the CAIN website [1], the three paragraphs beginning "As McAteer was to correctly conclude at the time, the aftermath of these events were undoubtedly going to usher in ‘a new phase in six County politics'." Scolaire (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abstentionism in the 1840's

Abstentionism was used by Republicans as early as the 1840's, by the Young Irelanders. It became official IRB policy in the 1870's. Why is this not mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domer48 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be a worthy addition, if you have the sources and the time. Scolaire (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I will indeed a chara, will take a couple of days, I'm a bit busy at the moment.--Domer48 (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Did the Young Irelanders or IRB ever stand for election? I've added a ref to Charles Gavan Duffy; elaboration welcome. Charles Stewart Parnell was probably in the IRB and was definitely a non-abstentionist MP. jnestorius(talk) 11:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
So too was John O'Connor Power, a senior IRB member elected in 1874, a year before Parnell. He took his seat.--Damac (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

John O'Connor Power's election caused division among the IRB, and he was expelled by March 1877.--Domer48 (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And three years later, by 1879, the vast majority of the IRB movement rowed in behind John Devoy's New Departure policy, which saw more Fenians and ex-Fenians become MPs and take their seats in the British parliament.--Damac (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
From Thomas Francis Meagher of Young Ireland's speech at Waterford by-election 1848:
I shall not meddle with English affairs. I shall take no part in the strife of parties: all factions are alike to me. I shall go to the English House of Commons to insist upon the right of this country to be held, governed, and defended by its own citizens, and by thorn alone. Whilst I live, I shall never rest satisfied until the kingdom of Ireland has won a parliament, an army, and a navy of her own.sourcejnestorius(talk) 16:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The most notable Young Irelander to state beforehand that they would not take their seat was John Mitchel in 1875. Mitchel was elected twice on large margins, but was declared non-illegible on both occasions. Ref Owen McGee, The IRB: The Irish Republican Brotherhood from the Land League to Sinn Féin, Four Courts Press,ISBN 1 85182 921 0 pg.53. I will get some ref's on William Smith O'Brien. In addition, I will get some on their policy on abstentionism, and that of the IRB--Domer48 (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Greater debate began to take place upon Irish nationalism, including upon one revolutionary idea that had been raised during the 1840s. This was that Irish independence might be achievable if the MPs at Westminster were persuaded to withdraw and unilateral set up an Irish government, which an Irish citizens’ defence force could then defend. This so-called ‘abstentionist policy’ was always favoured by two IRB leaders, John O’Leary and C.J. Kickham, and it would become the official IRB policy by the mid I870s." Ref Owen McGee, The IRB: The Irish Republican Brotherhood from the Land League to Sinn Féin, Four Courts Press,ISBN 1 85182 921 0 pg.39. McGee also cites letters of Kickham, as IRB president (DPB vol 1, 162-5), and O'Leary to Irishman (newspaper), 11 Jan. 1879, 20 Mar & 3 Apr 1880, in support of this statement. Just on a point of intrest, McGee has John Martin dying before Mitchel, which is wrong I belive. I will dig out the primary sources some time soon. --Domer48 (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

True. But, by 1879, many in the IRB movement rowed in behind John Devoy's New Departure policy, which saw more Fenians/ex-Fenians become MPs and take their seats in the British parliament.--Damac (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
As regards who died first, it was Mitchel. John Martin, already ill, left London for Mitchel's funeral, which he made, and died himself a few days later.--Damac (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Mitchel died on the 11 March, John Martin died nine days later. A New Dictionary of Irish History from 1800, D. J. Hickey & J. E. E Doherty, Gill & Macmillan, CIP 13542 Pg. 310. I have additional references should you need them. --Domer48 (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I know. I don't dispute it, neither does Wikipedia. See A. M. Sullivan, New Ireland, 16th ed, n.d., pp. 404ff.--Damac (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"As regards who died first, it was Mitchel." I thought you were disputing it, thats all. John Devoy was the leader of Clan na Gael, and was assisted by the IRB in the New Departure. Are you saying that the IRB or Young Ireland did not have an abstentionist policy? I just don't understand the "But" in your post above? Should this not all be included, giving an historical background. I have a copy of The Resurrection of Hungary, by Arthur Griffith, should we include some of the reactions in Westminister to this Policy. I will post some quoted statements later. --Domer48 (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"As regards who died first, it was Mitchel" is pretty unambiguous.
I know about Devoy and the New Departure.
I've no problem with some mention been given to the ideological roots of the policy of abstentionism, but the article is really about abstentionism since 1918, as practised and preached. It's best if you update the article with your additions, and let the community treat those on their merits.--Damac (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I did not realise that it was only really about abstentionism since 1918, as practised and preached. I thought it was about abstentionism and the policy of abstentionism? There is not much point if I update the article then since we are only talking about abstentionism since 1918. Might I suggest that the title should reflect that? Apologies again. --Domer48 (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Just had a look at the article, and it seems that User:jnestorius has done a fine job in adding information on the ideological roots of the policy.--Damac (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd welcome more detail on the IRB policy debate. I don't see why the article should to be restricted to post-1918. PS I've separated the "Abstentionism vs walkout" section again to keep related posts together. jnestorius(talk) 09:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In 1879, the IRB's John O'Leary on the founding of the Land League, knew that the Parnellite MP's would not adopt their "Hungarian Policy" that is the abstentionist policy. In a letter to the Irishman on April 3, May 8, and May 29 1880 he put forward this view. On April 3 he wrote:

"The best thing we could do would be to act like the Hungarians under somewhat similar circumstances: to refuse to send representatives to parliament at all. But this course would require an amount of public virtue we most certainly have not got at present and are not, I fear, likely to possess in any very near future. The next best course, me judice, would be to send men merely to protest and then leave the House, but that too is not at present, and probably will not be for a long time to come, within the region of what newspaper Solomons call practical politics."

Arthur Griffith's "Sinn Féin Policy", formulated 1905–07, (Griffith had been a member of the IRB) makes no mention of this IRB policy. No mention is made also of Griffith's notable work The Resurrection of Hungary,which outlined his policy in great detail. I think this would provide some useful background information, should it be included. --Domer48 (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abstentionism vs walkout

If you can identify examples of candidates running for election and stating beforehand that they would not take their seats, then this should be mentioned in the article somewhere. I would argue that there is a difference in taking one's seat, then boycotting it for some reason or other (like the SDLP and Stormont), and indicating from the before the election that one would not attend the parliament in question (SF in 1918/1919). (Please don't see this as "stalking", as I've contributed to this page as early as 2 August 2006 and its on my watchlist).--Damac (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(I've moved this point to its own section.) I agree there is a distinction between abstentionism and walking out of parliament in protest. Different again is the resign-and-restand principle as with the 1986 Unionists. Most walkouts have been short-term tactics, but there may be cases where what began as a walkout later solidified into an abstentionist strategy. I don't know how much should be discussed in this article and what needs discussion elsewhere, perhaps even in a new article. jnestorius(talk) 13:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)