Where is Sinn Fein Going?

by Ciaran Mulholland and Kevin McLoughlin

In the north

SINN FEIN made dramatic gains in the recent Westminster and local elections in the North. They went from two to four MP's, compared to the SDLP's three, and gained dozens of new local councillors. Their overall share of the vote, at 21.7%, was sharply up on the 9.9% they gained at the last General Election in 1997, though the rise is less dramatic when compared to other, more recent, elections.

Sinn Fein has now overtaken the SDLP to become the largest nationalist party in Northern Ireland. They gained 21.7% of the total vote to the SDLP's 21.0% and are the largest party on many councils, including Belfast. They will extend their lead in the next period. However the war of attrition they have fought out with the SDLP in the electoral field over the last twenty years is now likely to become a rout. Eventually; and perhaps very soon, they will become the dominant force of Northern nationalism. This is in no way a positive development.

These changes have been mirrored in the Protestant community by the growth of the DUP. They gained three new seats in the general election and like Sinn Fein have also made significant gains in the local councils. The UUP are under considerable pressure and at some point a major split in their ranks cannot be excluded. Such a development would lead to a realignment of Unionism, with anti-agreement UUP members linking up with the DUP and becoming the major political bloc within unionism. Even without a split in the UUP, the DUP may overtake them as Protestant alienation grows.

The decline of the SDLP

It is almost inconceivable that the SDLP will now be able to make up the ground they have lost. Whilst Sinn Fein's overall lead is narrow they are far ahead amongst young and working class voters. The three SDLP MP's are all towards heading retirement. Seamus Mallon's seat in Newry/Armagh is certain to fall to Conor Murphy of Sinn Fein when he goes. The SDLP are further ahead in John Hume's Foyle seat and in South Down but they are vulnerable and Sinn Fein are likely to expend considerable energy in winning these seats.

Sinn Fein are seen as young, dynamic, in touch with their voters and on the move. The SDLP are seen as middle aged, middle class and out of touch. Now that the "war" is over it is difficult for the SDLP to differentiate themselves from the more hardline nationalism of Sinn Fein. They certainly can't "out- green" them and despite all the talk of "post-nationalism" they have no other political message. Many Catholic voters will opt for the more robust party in these circumstances. This is the legacy of the peace process and the Agreement -the strengthening of the hardline parties in each camp and increased polarisation.

According to Hume Sinn Fein have "absolutely and totally and completely" no chance of overtaking the SDLP as the predominant party of Northern nationalism. The SDLP are "the leading voice of nationalism and socialism in Northern Ireland". He is wrong on both counts. The reference to socialism is laughable. Mark Durkan, Minister of Finance, is as orthodox as any of his counterparts in Europe. He fully accepts the dictates of the market. Sean Farren, Minister for Higher Education, has backtracked on the SDLP's promise to abolish student fees.

In the aftermath of the elections the leadership of Hume and Mallon is being openly questioned. Some within the SDLP are proposing that they gracefully retire and that the party then skips a generation and looks to Mark Durkan as a new leader and Alex Attwood, as his deputy; to revitalise their shaky structures. A major problem for the proponents of this "dream ticket" is that Attwood and his brother Tim were the strategists behind the decision to put Brid Rodgers into West Tyrone in order to stem the onward march of Sinn Fein -a strategy that ended in disaster. Attwood also presided over a collapse in the SDLP vote in West Belfast of nearly 10,000 -Gerry Adams won 27,096 votes or 66% of the total.

Overall the election results demonstrated that there is less and less political ground for any forces outside the main four parties.

The Alliance Party are in terminal decline, their vote falling everywhere, losing councillors and leaders and with no prospect of reversing their fortunes. They won only 3.6% of the vote against 9.2% in 1997 (though these figures are distorted by the fact that Alliance stood down in favour of pro-Agreement parties in many seats). Deputy Leader Seamus Close resigned in late June citing differences over the direction of the party. The fate of Alliance is shared by other parties outside the big four. The Women's Coalition has two members in the Assembly but did poorly in the local and Westminster elections. They only fielded one Westminster and eight council candidates despite the torrent of favourable publicity they have received over recent years. Similarly the PUP's vote was squeezed. The total vote gained by parties outside the big four was historically low at 8%, down 5.5% on 1997.

The friends of Sinn Fein

The membership of Sinn Fein is largely working class though there is a significant rural component. Until recently there were no careers to be made within its ranks, unlike in the ranks of establishment parties such as the Tories and New Labour in Britain and Fianna Fail, the Labour Party and Fine Gael in the South. Members of Sinn Fein were, and to a lesser extent still are, subject to harassment by the state and live with the constant risk of assassination. By and large they live in working class areas and do not visibly benefit from their political involvement.

Does this mean that they are an anti-establishment party; a radical party or even a socialist party? The answer is a resounding no. Their record in the Executive and on the ground in the areas tells the story.

Sinn Fein has been actively courted by a cabal of Irish American multi-millionaires, and by sections of the Irish, British and American ruling classes over the last decade. The Republican leadership are like rabbits caught in the headlights of an oncoming lorry. They are heart scared to offend their new allies. When a Sinn Fein councillor visited the US recently she was forbidden by the leadership back in Ireland to visit a political activist on death row in case the nose of a vital friend of Sinn Fein was put out of joint. Right-wing Congressmen who prosecute the blockade on Cuba are feted in west Belfast. The dollars are flooding in and any socialist veneer that Sinn Fein once had is long gone.

Ex-Belfast IRA commander Brendan Hughes has described how he found it difficult to obtain employment on building sites in West Belfast after he was released from prison. He is ostracised as a dissident from the line of the Republican leadership whilst low pay employers are allowed to exploit with impunity as they are loyal to the leadership.

Sinn Fein is certainly not anti-establishment in any real sense of the word. Are they anti-sectarian? Again the answer is no. Their record on the issue of parades illustrates the point.

The parades issue

There has been genuine anger in some Catholic areas for many years over deliberate coattrailing by the Orange Order. In some cases this was extreme and very provocative. There is no doubt however that the issue has been used by Sinn Fein. They have a clear strategy of establishing political and social control in "their" areas. In order to do so it is necessary to geographically separate the working class. Territory is marked out by flags and murals and areas are routinely and repeatedly described as Catholic/nationalist/Republican. The result is to create a situation of near total control by the two wings of the Republican movement. Dissident Republicans are hounded, the SDLP harassed.

Punishment beatings and shootings are welcomed by some working class people whose lives are blighted by crime. Such barbarism is unjustifiable on any grounds. There is also ample evidence that such barbarous tactics are used against those who cross swords with the Provos and not just against alleged "hoods". A number of dissident Republicans have been "dealt with" in this way. Many residents groups do have a real base but they are also used by Sinn Fein as a vehicle to advance their aim of dividing the working class more and more permanently; This can be seen clearly in largely Protestant towns such as Ballymena, Antrim, Larne and Newtownabbey; Catholics in these areas have undoubtedly suffered from sectarian abuse and attack over the years. The response of Sinn Fein is to mark out certain estates as nationalist territory and to raise the issue of parades. Such tactics are less about asserting Catholic rights than they are about establishing new redoubts for Sinn Fein.

Sinn Féin in power

The two Sinn Fein members in the Executive have not distinguished them- selves from the other Executive parties (the SDLP, DUP and UUP) in any way: Martin McGuinness rejected the claim of the term time workers to a wage over the school holidays. He is now spearheading the privatisation of our schools. Bairbre de Bruin explains the need for cutbacks in the familiar language of establishment politicians everywhere: "I have to be realistic because resources are tight and my fight for more resources is well documented. I will not promise to do things that we cannot afford but for me 'resources permitting is not a get-out clause but a statement that there are limitations to what can be achieved".

The Hayes Report on the future of Northern Ireland's health service, commissioned by de Bruin, is couched in the familiar terms of senior civil ser vants with their eyes on the purse strings. It recommends huge cuts in services and a massive increase in reliance on the Private Finance Initiative. The report has already been welcomed in broad terms by John Kelly and Sue Ramsey of Sinn Fein. Francie Molloy has stated that he has no principled objection to private medicine. Hayes is proposing more or less what past direct rule ministers proposed. Nothing has changed as far as social and economic issues are concerned.

Sinn Fein's strategy is to keep the Agreement in place, at least for now. They are making significant electoral advances and have nothing to gain by a return to war. Ultimately they hope to become the largest single party in the North and to enter into government in the South. Their tactics, of cantonising the North under the guise of fighting for the rights of Catholics, could backfire however and bring the Agreement institutions down. Even then of course their support will increase as a result of increased sectarian tension and a feeling amongst many Catholics that the unionists are to blame.

The "party of freedom?"

According to Martin McGuinness Sinn Fein is "the party of liberation, the party of freedom. We are the largest Nationalist party in the North". What this freedom will look like is not entirely clear but we have a few clues. It will involve the freedom to exploit the low paid for the employers and the freedom to suffer low pay for the working class. Sinn Fein's message is the same as it was 80 years ago -"labour must wait". Under Sinn Fein the wait would be interminable. More than ever the cause of labour is the only way forward. As Lenin argued an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory. The experience of Sinn Fein in power, especially at a time of increased class struggle, will open the eyes of more and more Catholic workers and young people to their real agenda. In the next period major battles are likely to open up in the public sector that will pitch large groups of workers into conflict with Sinn Fein ministers. Events will change everything.

Sinn Fein stand for sectarian division and are a right wing nationalist party. They deliberately foment a triumphalist mood in Catholic areas and a mood of uncertainty and insecurity in Protestant areas. Their attitude to Protestant workers is deeply sectarian, regarding them as unthinking dupes of Britain and the unionist leadership. In reality they deny Protestants a say by deriding everything they do say; They have nothing to offer. The task now is not to wait for future developments but to begin to build a real socialist alternative, for Catholics and Protestants, today.

In the south

THE DEFEAT of the Nice Treaty (2001) showed that the anti-establishment mood in the South is looking to find expression. The collapse in the authority of Fianna Fail, Labour and Fine Gael has opened up a political vacuum to the left. Is Sinn Fein set to become a significant force south of the border? Are they capable of filling the political vacuum?

Views about Sinn Fein vary significantly. Some working class people see Sinn Fein as principled fighters but others see them as a divisive group who use thuggish methods. It is easy to understand where such divergent opinions are coming from because in the south Sinn Fein is full of contradictions and spin.

Republicans do use intimidation and isolated acts of violence and these methods are not the way to deal with issues like anti-social behaviour. Such activity must be opposed. This is not from a pacifist point of view but because communities have no control or check on such activities which can lead to gangsterism and intimidation of people who represent minority but legitimate political views. It also in the longer term doesn't work because it never gets to the root causes of the problems. On the other side, however, Sinn Fein is growing and many of the members and supporters of the party are genuine activists and want to fight on the issues that effect working class communities.

However, what some of the members want and what the Sinn Fein leadership want are two completely different things. The Sinn Fein leadership want to become a party of government, North and South. In trying to step into the political vacuum, they have some big advantages. Not a day goes by without significant, generally positive, coverage in the media. Because of their past they are seen to be outside of the establishment and not the same as the careerist politicians from the other par ties. To try to tap the anti-establishment mood they pose as defenders of ordinary people by putting forward populist ideas and even in the case of Ógra Shinn Fein mention socialism.

Election gains?

As things stand they are likely to make important gains in the next general election. With considerable resources they have targeted certain constituencies, opening offices and developing the profile of their candidates. It is impossible to predict but Sinn Fein could get three or four or, depending on the context of the election, possibly more TDs elected, with an outside chance of holding the balance of power. Apart from their work on the ground the key reasons for their potential to grow are, on the one hand, the removal of the obstacle that the military campaign represented to extending their base beyond the most economically depressed areas and, on the other, the strong desire for a political alternative that exists generally.

But Sinn Fein is speaking out of both sides of its mouth at the same time. As it has done in the past, populist and even socialist rhetoric is put out for public consumption when it suits. This is then dropped when the serious business starts like the period before the negotiations with the British and Irish governments on the "peace process". This is holiday speechifying. There isn't a serious theoretical understanding or practical commitment to class struggle or socialism within Sinn Fein. More than once in private conversations, long standing members have dismissed the possibility of a serious challenge to capitalism.

In the early and mid 1990s when socialist ideas were being attacked constantly by the establishment, where was Sinn Fein's defense of the socialist goal? In fact at that time the Sinn Fein leadership had in reality accepted the legitimacy of the capitalist market just as the ANC and the PLO had done.

These changes in the political character of Sinn Fein are reflected in other ways. Funding from US big business invariably compromises Sinn Fein further. This is not a tactical issue, it should be a point of principle for a party that purports to represent workers. The membership of Sinn Fein is growing but it is also changing. Sinn Fein are recruiting in working class areas but also in the middle class and amongst students. However, it is undoubtedly the case now that in some areas activists who had maintained Sinn Fein for years have stepped back. In some cases this is because of what they consider to be a sell-out on the national question but others because of the party's rightward shift on politics.

Bin tax sellout

Regardless of how careful they are of maintaining a radical image, particularly before an election, inevitably practical examples of their acceptance of capitalism and its dictates emerge. Sinn Fein got three councillors elected in Sligo in 1999, in the process declaring their opposition to double taxation service charges. Since then they once abstained and then last year actually voted for the charges as part of a deal for their councillor, McManus, to become the Lord Mayor. This wasn't just a local decision. This is a targeted constituency and Sinn Fein obviously wanted the mayoral position for the purposes of developing their profile and being seen as a respectable, responsible party; An Phoblacht produced a long article to try to justify the position. Reports were included about the activities of Sinn Fein in different areas, fighting on the charges but then it went on to say that in Sligo the situation was very difficult. They argued that Sinn Fein's votes mattered and that the council was under threat of being abolished; that this would be a blow to democracy as an unelected official would be appointed to run the council; that they had to vote for the charges but only did so having made sure that the most hard pressed people would benefit from the waiver scheme etc.

In other words the electoral prospects of Sinn Fein are more important than making a principled stand against doulble taxation or making a stand against the real threat to democracy from the Minister of the Environment. A party that is really committed to fighting on behalf of working class people would have stood up to the threat. If the council was abolished, a huge campaign could have been launched and linked to the campaigns around the country. This would have posed a serious opportunity to demand a reversal of the decision and to raise the key issue that the central government grants to the councils must be increased and that all local charges must be abolished.

Sinn Fein also compromised themselves when Dublin Corporation brought in refuse charges earlier this year. There was a consensus among all the parties to bring in the charges but, in order to try to confuse ordinary people, a deal was done whereby some of the parties would split their votes, so as to allow some of their candidates to say they opposed the charge while the vote was carried. Sinn Fein's contribution to this charade was to have two of their four councillors vote against, while the other two were absent and to oppose the recording of the vote for the public record when that was called for by independent TD Tony Gregory.

In this instance because a broad campaign has been established and because of the overwhelming opposition to the charge, Sinn Fein may be forced to completely oppose the charge at a future date. For them, however, will be a tactical not a principled question.

Sinn Fein may cynically try to instigate mass campaigns for electoral purposes over the next months. But their approach, just as it was during the military campaign, is not to involve Ordinary people but to try to control developments themselves. Their refusal to build a democratic campaign with activists in all the estates in Drogheda was a crucial factor in the defeat of the anti-refuse charges movement in the town.

This flowed from the fact that they do not see the working class as a force for change. This also explains why they have no serious orientation to the trade union movement. As a party with serious resources they play no role in taking on the union bureaucracy and transforming the unions in to fighting organisations.

However, we are also likely to see their non-involvement on important but potentially controversial issues. Sinn Fein didn't in any active way support or participate in the recent Women on Waves initiative which successfully raised the issue of crisis pregnancies and the hypocrisy of the state on abortion. If there is a new referendum on abortion, it will be very interesting to see Sinn Fein's position but also whether they put as much into the campaign as they did in the recent Nice Referendum!

Anti-establishment?

Sinn Fein faces ordinary people as an anti-establishment force but it also faces the establishment itself saying "we are respectable, if we are in power your system including your profits and privileged position will be safeguarded". The latter is its true face.

They are a capitalist, nationalist party which uses populism to extend its base. How and when Sinn Fein will be exposed will depend on events. It could be like the Labour Party in 1992 when, having campaigned against Fianna Fail, they brought them back into power in a very unpopular pro-business government.

Or it is possible Sinn Fein may not be in government after the next election and could benefit further from their fake anti-establishment stance. Either way it is only a matter of time before they are exposed. In the context of the development of economic recession, the intensification of exploitation and the increased desire for a fighting left-wing alternative, not only will the Sinn Fein leadership be found wanting but they will be a barrier to this struggle.

In the meantime they can raise the hopes of some working class people and cause confusion for others. Their growth in the next period doesn't affect the potential for the Socialist Party to become a very significant force electorally; in the communities, the work- places or amongst the youth.

The vacuum that is opening up in Irish society can best be filled by a fighting socialist movement. We remain committed to the ideas of revolutionary socialism, to building our party and, with other genuine activists, to launching a new mass workers party when the time is right.

Unions in Britain & Ireland
Take on the Right Wing

by Stephen Boyd

THE SUSPENSION of Mick O'Reilly from his post as Regional Secretary of the ATGWU is one of the most serious attacks on the left of the trade union movement in years. This witch-hunt has been instigated by the right wing leadership of ICTU and SIPTU, and has involved the Irish and British governments at the highest level. It has been reported that the leadership of SIPTU spoke to Bertie Ahern who contacted Tony Blair who in turn then spoke to the ATGWU General Secretary Bill Morris about dealing with Mick O'Reilly.

This move against Mick O'Reilly and the attacks on ASTI and the ILDA are confirmation that the right wing leadership of the trade union movement are acting more and more openly as the agents of the bosses' interests in the workers' movement.

This suspension has occurred because Mick has been the most outspoken leading trade unionist against social partnership and also because of the recruitment of the ILDA into the ATGWU. The ILDA joined the ATGWU earlier this year because management at CIE had consistently refused to accept its right to negotiate on behalf of its members. SIPTU took the ATGWU to the ICTU disputes committee claiming that 62 of the ILDA members were actually SIPTU members in arrears even though they left SIPTU over two years ago. ICTU have told the ATGWU to throw the ILDA out.

Defend Mick O'Reilly

What is happening is that ICTU, and the leaderships of SIPTU and the NBRU are collaborating with CIE management to try and break the ILDA who have been the most militant section of that workforce in the recent period. The bureaucracies are sending out a signal to all activists, that if you oppose the dictatorship of social partnership that we will use everything at our disposal to crush you.

A battle must now be launched that involves every trade unionist that believes in democracy within our movement. Mick O'Reilly needs to be defended and a mass campaign of opposition should take place not only inside the ATGWU but also in every other union and amongst the general public against this suspension. If they get away with sacking Mick O'Reilly, then it will spur on the bureaucracy to move against all other opposition.

The Socialist Party has explained consistently over the last number of years that a process of change had begun within the ranks of the trade union movement. We have explained that this process would eventually be reflected in a political shift to the left within the unions and a challenge from the membership to the right wing leadership's' strategy of social partnership.

This process is still unfolding but already we can see clear signs in a number of unions of what is to come in the next number of years. Social partnership is the 'credo' of the right wing both in Ireland (North and South) and Britain. In the South of Ireland social partnership now encompasses every aspect of the trade union movement and its relationship with the employers and the government. So much so that anyone who dares to challenge it is immediately demonised and vilified. We saw the ludicrous statements from so-called industrial relations experts during the ASTI (secondary school teachers) dispute who said that the ASTI couldn't expect to get away with being outside the 'normal industrial relations channels, in other words social partnership. But social partnership is not 'normal industrial relations'. It has only existed in its present form in the South for 14 years, and it is in reality an alien doctrine which has been brought into our movement by those with an agenda which ultimately aims to emasculate the unions turning them into nothing more than service providers who act as facilitators between management and the workforce to ensure the smooth running of the capitalist system. The industrial action and campaigns by workers at the Royal Mail, term time, the ASTI, the ILDA, Aer Lingus and many others represents the real traditions of our movement. Recent events indicate that it is actions such as theirs, challenging the CBI and IBEC and the British and Irish governments' agendas through industrial action that will more and more become the norm once again in industrial relations.

During the current period sections of activists are drawing the lesson that they need to be organised to challenge the 'credo' of social partnership. This lesson is being drawn by activists because of the experiences that they have gone through. It is events and particularly the effects of the forthcoming economic recession that will drive many thousands of activists to draw similar lessons. A new layer of trade union activists is coming on to the scene.

Opposition to the right wing leaders of the movement was temporarily quelled and knocked back during the 1980s and 1990s because of many factors that we have outlined before. The number of good activists who survived this period has been small, but nevertheless in a number of unions those who came through this period are now being joined by fresh layers of activists who want to reclaim their unions for the membership.

Broad left in NIPSA

In Britain this can be seen in unions such as UNISON, FBU, CWU, PCS (see Bill Mullins' article). In the North this process is most pronounced within NIPSA (Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance). The broad left in NIPSA has been in existence for over 20 years. Members of the Socialist Party have played a key role consistently through the broad left in opposing the right wing clique who have dominated this union of 38,000 public sector workers (biggest union in Northern Ireland). However, over a long period the support for the broad left as reflected in the leading bodies of the union was seriously diminished. For example, in 2000 there was only one broad left member on the unions' leading body the General Council. However, in the last two years a dramatic turnaround has taken place. Now the Broad Left/Time for Change group has 12 members on the General Council, 20 out of 25 seats on the Public Officers' Executive and nine on the Civil Service Executive, and five out of seven seats on the General Purposes Committee. The positions of president and treasurer were also won by members of this bloc.

The reasons behind this spectacular turnaround in support for the idea of a fighting leadership are a clear indication of a process that is unfolding throughout the whole of the movement in these islands. In NIPSA a combination of factors has had a dramatic effect on the consciousness of many activists. The continued assault on the public sector by Blair's New Labour regime, which has been fully backed up by the Green and Orange Tories in the Assembly has resulted in a developing anger and fear amongst NIPSA members that their jobs, wages and terms and conditions of employment as well as the service that they provide to the public is seriously under threat from creeping privatisation. This is being brought in all sectors of the public and civil service through practices such as Best Value, Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) and Public Private Partnerships (PPP). And this process is set to go even further as New Labour outlined quite clearly after their recent re-election that they intend to privatise the NHS.

Struggles by NIPSA members over the last two years have been as a direct result of the Blairs' anti-public sector policies. These struggles show clearly that when workers have their backs against the wall and face the choice of struggle or having to accept roll backs of past gains and when leadership is given they will fight even against the wishes of their own trade union leaders.

The struggles by the childcare social workers in North and West Belfast and Foyle and of the term time workers showed what can be done when a fighting leadership is given. Not only did these groups of workers achieve magnificent victories they also opened the eyes of thousands of NIPSA members to the fact that their current union leadership was totally incapable and unwillingly to defend its members' interests. The recent victories for the left in NIPSA are in great part due to these disputes.

Members were given a clear practical example, that when it came to fighting for more resources for childcare or for decent wages and conditions for workers in the education sector that broad left and Socialist Party members were prepared to take on management, and the political establishment. In sharp contrast the right wing bureaucrats did as much as possible to hinder the members.

Fighting SIPTU's bureaucracy

Similar changes are also taking place in a number of unions in the South. SIPTU, the largest union in the South, has been the main driving force behind social partnership. This union because of its huge numerical strength, and strong right-wing dominated bureaucracy has been able to swing the votes on the national wage agreements over the last 14 years. Many union activists have despaired at the apparent unassailable strength of those who are entrenched on the fifteenth floor of Liberty Hall. However in the last number of years serious and important cracks have opened up in SIPTU's monolithic structure. DAGO (Dublin Alliance of General Operatives) is a rank and file group which has been established by activists amongst SIPTU's building workers. This group has played an important role in taking on SIPTUs full time officials and the construction industry's' management. DAGO has organised workers into taking direct, and on many occasions illegal industrial action. In Dublin Airport a similar development is unfolding.

In Aer Lingus for many years there has been a cosy and corrupt relationship between leading SIPTU's full time officials and Aer Lingus management. This unhealthy relationship played a major role in keeping the majority of Aer Lingus workers in the misery of low pay. A combination of the current Celtic Tiger boom, and huge profits at the company has resulted in a battle between Aer Lingus workers and the management over pay. The move by 1,400 Aer Lingus Cabin crew to IMPACT was a significant blow to SIPTU's bureaucracy. The cabin crew received wide sympathy throughout the company and a similar move was considered by loaders, catering & cleaning staff, airport police, clerical staff in Aer Lingus and also workers in Servisair to try and get out of SIPTU.

There is now a widespread hatred of SIPTU in the airport. Many workers feel that if it was easy to get another union recognised that there would be a mass exodus from SIPTU. However SIPTU have learnt have from the split to IMPACT and the events with ILDA to make this situation very difficult. A layer of rank and file shop-stewards across the airport sections have begun to come together to get organised to collectively take on the SIPTU leadership as a co-ordinated alternative and have succeeded in pushing the bureaucracy back in some instances.

What these events illustrate is that when a lead is given, no matter how big an obstacle the bureaucracy is to preventing workers from taking action, they will find ways around these barriers. There is now a constant battle against the SIPTU leadership who are working hand in hand with Aer Lingus management to try and break all opposition. For example management have concluded a deal with the loading section but have refuse to settle with the cleaners where there are shop stewards opposed to the SIPTU leadership. This is an attempt to split the workers and to undermine the cleaners' shop stewards.

Developments in the CPSU

In the CPSU important gains have been made by rank and file activists. Socialist Party members and others organised around the Activist group have over many years been struggling to win a majority on the executive committee. The main thrust behind their work has been to convince the members that it is necessary to replace the right wing careerists with members who were prepared to fight to end the serious problem of low pay being faced by many CPSU members. The election of Denis Keane to the presidency for two years was a very important step forward. And at this year's conference the left took an outright majority on the executive committee. There is now a real possibility that the full time bureaucracy within that union can be beaten and replaced in the next period.

Lack of democracy

Many of the problems that are faced by trade union members are due to the lack of democracy within the movement. In the vast majority of unions the full time negotiating officials are un-elected and highly paid. In SIPTU and the AEEU, branch secretaries are full time officials. This is an important tool in the hands of the bureaucracies of these two unions which helps them to maintain a grip on the structures right down into the roots of the union. Therefore the idea of campaigning for increased democracy is gaining a bigger echo in a number of unions as members and activists are starting to see clearly that the ability to elect full time negotiating officials could have a dramatic effect in weakening the right wing bureaucracy.

How many of the current full time officials would be elected into their jobs on a regular basis? How many of these officials would even stay in these jobs if their pay was set at the average industrial wage? Socialist Party members in unions throughout these islands have consistently raised this issue for debate on the floor of conference in unions such as NIPSA, UNISON, FBU, PCS to name but a few. Now in the AEEU, the left group around the journal Engineering Gazette is campaigning for the election of officials. Unity Left within MSF is probably going to adopt the same position in the near future. The Socialist Party would argue that this demand should be to the forefront of the programme of the broad left/activists groups that exist and are developing throughout the unions.

Our party has been to the fore of the struggle over many decades for the establishment of broad lefts within the movement. The successes of the left within UNISON, NIPSA and the CPSU have been largely due to the consistent work of our members and others on the left, painstakingly at times pursuing the development of these bodies. Left groups within the unions must at all times put forward a political programme which shows clearly to the rank and file that it has a credible alternative to the current right wing leadership's policies. Broad left groups exist in many unions in Britain.

Rebuilding the left

However in Ireland, at present, there are very few strong broad left caucuses in existence. During the next period it will be essential for left activists to put to the top of their agendas the aim of constructing such bodies. However, it is crucially important to understand that broad lefts cannot be parachuted artificially into a union. Five people sitting in a room above a bar cannot just declare themselves to be the rank and file opposition within a union. The development of broad lefts is intrinsically linked to the struggles of the membership. In NIPSA for example the broad left has received it greatest level of support from the members at times of heightened industrial struggle. That is a key lesson from the last two years in that union. In SIPTU organised left opposition is developing in a number of sectors i.e., the building industry and Aer Lingus precisely for the same reason. It is a task now for those who aim to build left caucuses to try and bring the various activists who are being thrown up by these struggles together into co-ordinated campaigning groups around agreed programmes and strategies.

In the South whereas a change has begun, it is by no means uniform or straightforward. There are a number of conflicting processes coming to bear on the movement. The 'straight jacket' of social partnership is still affecting the ability of the members in a number of areas to struggle properly for their slice of the Celtic Tiger boom. Also partnership has played a major role in depleting the ranks of those currently active at branch level and in other structures of the union. In most unions except at times of industrial action most branches struggle to get quorums for meetings. This problem is slowly being overcome.

The boom has been a double-edged sword for the working class. On the one hand, large sections of workers have been able to secure wage increases way above those of the national wage agreements because of labour shortages that exist in most sectors. Some of these pay increases have been won through struggle. However, the majority have been won because the employers can't afford to risk strike action, because loss of production during the current boom would have a detrimental effect on their market share and also because they simply can't afford to have their employees leaving and going into other areas of the economy or even to their competitors. The other side of the boom which has 'slowed' up the move in the direction of increased militancy within the unions has been the ability of the government to make significant tax cuts. It is the case within a number of unions that even amongst good people an attitude prevails at times that all you have to do is wait until the next round of budget tax cuts for your pay rise. The current pay increases of the PPF combined with the tax cuts, and what is seen by many as the 'defeat' of the ASTI has been a factor within the CPSU in the development of a reticence to taking industrial action for a pay claim outside the PPF.

Effects of a recession

However, with the recession in the USA, and the likelihood of this developing into a world recession over the next period, these factors will be taken out of the equation. Another intertwined contradiction is that the majority of workers are coming under increasing financial pressure due to the current levels of inflation, the pressure of house prices and ever rising rents.

What is clearly indicated is that once the Celtic Tiger economy slows down and goes into recession, a mountain of problems that have been stored up will translate into the unleashing of a new phase of anger and militancy in the trade union movement.

We can already see the outlines of this potential in a number of areas. One indication which shows that this potential is recognised by our enemies has been the more than usual openness of the ICTU bureaucracy in its collaboration with government and business in opposing workers who have moved into struggle. The ICTU leadership will now do anything within its power to protect social partnership. The truth is that the trade union bureaucrats, above all of the 'social partners', need partnership the most.

The government and IBEC will face massive difficulties when social partnership is decisively broken, but the right wing of the unions will be left floundering, and will face a tremendous political assault from the rank and file. Its open collaboration was clearly shown during the ASTI dispute, and more recently in its moves against the ATGWU and the Irish Locomotive Drivers Association (ILDA) and Mick O'Reilly.

The tide is however turning now in favour of trade union members. The battles that have begun in unions like NIPSA, CPSU, SIPTU, UNISON and now the ATGWU to reclaim the unions for the membership will intensify in the next period. This work, alongside the inevitable battles that will be fought against the effects of the oncoming world recession, will put the current class collaborators who 'lead' our movement under enormous pressure and will eventually lead to their unceremonious removal.

Middle East on a Knife Edge

by Peter Hadden

FOR THE people of Israel/Palestine the hopes raised by the Oslo Agreement and the peace process are a distant memory. The drift of events is towards increased conflict, possibly to war, certainly not in the direction of peace.

In the Territories there are elements of civil war in the almost daily clashes between the various Palestinian militias and the settlers. There is the danger of similar sectarian clashes within Israel itself. And beyond this there is the added danger that these events could spill out of control triggering a regional war involving Israel and the surrounding Arab regimes.

Could it come to this? Certainly the events of the last few months have shown how the situation could unravel. Since April we have had the temporary reoccupation of parts of Gaza by the IDF, the death of five people in a suicide bomb in the coastal town of Netayna, F16 fighters used in retaliatory attacks against targets in Gaza and the West Bank and then the horror of the suicide bombing of a Tel Aviv night-club that left 20 dead.

The Sharon cabinet went into emergency session after this incident but under pressure from the US administration, held back from immediate retaliation. While leaning mainly on Israel, US imperialism still wants to play a balancing act in the region, leaning also on the compliant Arab regimes. Bush has backed the Mitchell proposals for a cease-fire by all the Palestinian groups, for an end to new settlement building, and the opening of a door to future negotiations.

A regional war?

The ruling elites of Syria, Jordan and Egypt do not want a war that would arouse their own populations and destabilise the region. And for the Israeli ruling class a war to reconquer Gaza and the West Bank or to seize any further Arab territory makes no sense.

Two decades ago they were able to smash their way to Beirut only to discover that it is one thing to use their vastly superior military might to grab territory; it is another thing to try to hold it against a hostile local population. Just over 12 months ago the Israeli Defence Force was forced to beat a hasty retreat from Lebanon.

The background to Oslo was the seven years of the first Intifada. The stone throwing youth of Gaza and the West Bank could not militarily defeat the IDF, but neither could the IDF crush this rebellion.

The purpose behind Oslo, from the Israeli point of view, was to cede a few parcels of land to Arafat and allow him to create a Palestinian security apparatus that would do the job of containing the Palestinian youth that the IDF was unable to do. A new war that ended with the reoccupation of Palestinian Authority territory would leave the IDF where they were before Oslo, trying to contain a hostile population with the added complication that this time the area is bristling with weapons.

The fact that the vested interests of imperialism and of the local rulers is not for war does not mean that they will be able to prevent war taking place. The Western powers did not want war in the Balkans but were unable to avoid it.

Attacks on Palestinians

The fact that all sides of the conflict have in words accepted the Mitchell plan does not mean that any of them will be able to put it into effect. After Oslo the Israeli ruling class continued, even accelerated, the building of settlements. Now Sharon says he will comply with Mitchell over settlements. Yet in late June he announced proposals for new housing in Maaleh Adumim, the largest settlement in the West Bank. The excuse that this is merely the natural demographic expansion of existing settlements doesn't stand up given that there are some 20,000 family units unoccupied in the existing settlements.

This issue is a running sore with the Palestinians. For the people living in the occupied territories the settlements are just another of the promises broken since Oslo. The Oslo accord was never going to measure up as a solution. Arguably it might have had a longer life if the Israeli ruling class had been prepared to follow it up with at least some concessions on those issues left over for the negotiating table.

Instead of concessions all that the Palestinians got was more of the same: no movement on settlements, the ongoing attempt to turn Jerusalem into a Jewish city and the same discrimination on water.

Within the cantons of territory that were ceded the Palestinians got the corrupt and undemocratic rule of Arafat and his cronies. While the restrictions on working in Israel, the corruption and the starving of funds made things worse for the Palestinian masses the elite rulers were able to supply themselves with new cars and other luxuries. Much of the money meant for services ended up in the pockets of this elite. Their priorities were seen in the decision to build a casino in Jericho while health services are so starved of funding that 63% of primary health care is still provided by NGOs.

The brutal response of the Israeli government to the second Intifada has worsened this situation. Entry permits to 81,000 Palestinians to allow them to work inside Israel have been withdrawn. Unemployment in the territories has shot up to 38%. Over one million people in these areas now live below the poverty line.

Intifada inside Israel

The mood of the Palestinian youth is - understandably - for conflict, not peace. Arafat might offer a cease-fire and arrest of militants but his ability to deliver any of this is seriously in question.

It may be that the present situation of relatively low intensity conflict, punctuated by sporadic upsurges of more intense violence and by periodic attempts at negotiation, may continue for a period. Within this context the possibility exists that the violence could escalate out of control leading to war.

It is possible that it could be the million-strong Palestinian population within Israel who upset the present delicate political and military balance. The Israeli ruling class have been extremely fortunate that, up to now, their policy of viciously repressing this community has, by and large, been successful. With notable exceptions, such as the 'land day' movement, the Palestinians in Israel have remained relatively quiescent. They stood apart from the first Intifada.

Now there are signs that this population have had enough and that a new and much more confrontational mood is starting to develop. When the Intifada began last autumn it ignited a movement within Israel.

At the beginning of October there were violent clashes in Arab towns, notably Umn-al-Fahm to the north. 13 Palestinians were killed. In some areas clashes developed between Jews and Palestinians.

More recently, after the Tel Aviv disco bomb, a number of incidents took place that showed the more determined, less servile mood of Palestinians. A mosque close to the scene of the bomb was stoned by a crowd of Jews. In the past the Arabs inside would have cowered for their lives. This time they came out to fight back and defend the mosque. When news spread to the nearby, mainly Palestinian, town of Jaffa, Jewish cars driving through were stoned.

The Palestinians in Israel are a tinderbox ready to explode. And if an explosion comes it is easy to see how it could quickly take the form of inter-community fighting. Last October the outlines of what might happen were briefly apparent. Then, looking into an abyss, there was a drawing back on both sides. The government, in a reverse of previous policy, announced that funds would be put into Palestinian areas.

This U-turn, which in any case has not been properly implemented, has been too little and too late. The problem now for the Israeli rulers is that an escalation of the Intifada, or a vicious military clampdown in the territories, or both, might have the effect of triggering a new movement inside Israel.

The possibility of an internal as well as an external Intifada, and that the elements of civil war already present in the territories would spread to Israel, is a nightmare scenario for the Israeli ruling class. Under these circumstances the regime might go for a different military solution: unilateral withdrawal from the territories, a retreat behind 'defensible frontiers' and the expulsion of the one million Palestinians from Israel.

This idea, which has always been an option in Israeli military thinking, would not bring stability. As in 1948 it would produce a wave of refugees who could not be incorporated either into a Palestinian state or into the surrounding Arab regimes. There is no possibility of lasting stability in the region under capitalism. In reality the ruling elites on both sides have failed the people of the region, Arab and Jew. The Israeli ruling class are incapable of delivering either the security or the decent standard of life that the Jewish population want.

Growth of fundamentalism

Neither Arafat nor the rulers of the Arab states are capable of delivering a genuinely independent Palestinian state, let alone a state that offers the Palestinian masses a reasonable standard of life. Arafat has no strategy for the Intifada, seeing it only as a bargaining chip to allow him to put some pressure on the Israelis during negotiations.

As Arafat loses support, the fundamentalist groups, notably Hamas and Islamic Jihad, are gaining ground especially among the youth. These groups are now adopting the methods of struggle of the PLO in the past, particularly the tactic of terrorist attacks inside Israel.

When carried out by more secular groups like Fatah and the PFLP such methods proved counterproductive, succeeding only in driving the Jewish working class to close ranks and support their rulers. A new war against Jewish civilians carried out by fundamentalist groups is likely to provoke even fiercer opposition within Israel and will have no better results.

Anything that the Palestinians have achieved has been through the pressure of the mass uprisings of the youth, not through individual terrorism. The way forward is to develop the Intifada as a mass movement. Rather than a struggle headed by unaccountable militias it should be democratically controlled with an elected leadership.

But military means alone will not bring a Palestinian state. To defeat the Israeli ruling class the Palestinians would need to divide the Jewish population and to win the working class Israelis to support the withdrawal of the IDF from the occupied territories.

This cannot be done through attacks on Jewish civilians. Nor can it be done if the struggle is for an undemocratic capitalist state like the surrounding Arab regimes.

Were the Intifada to develop into a struggle against the corrupt rulers of the PA as well as against the IDF, and for a socialist Palestine it would have a huge effect inside Israel. An appeal to the Jewish working class and to the conscript ranks of the IDF, not to oppose this struggle but to stand alongside the Palestinian masses to bring about a socialist Palestine and a socialist Israel would change everything.

There are those on the left internationally - groups like the Socialist Workers Party in Ireland - who dismiss any prospect of winning any section of the Jewish population to a socialist struggle exactly as they previously dismissed any prospect of ever winning Protestants in Northern Ireland.

Class divisions in Israel

Their attitude to the Jewish working class is as ill-informed as their past attitude to Protestants. The Jewish population is not one homogeneous reactionary mass. In fact it is an extremely stratified population. The Sephardic Jews - those of Middle Eastern origin - suffer discrimination to the degree that the living standards of many are much closer to those of Israeli Palestinians than to the elite rulers.

Class anger runs deep in Israeli society. In recent years it has been expressed in a series of important strikes and in a massive movement, including a series of general strikes, against privatisation. The effects of the world economic crisis are starting to be felt. The textile industry has been decimated. The IT sector, which up to recently was hailed as the new hope for the economy, is also experiencing crisis with cuts and job losses.

On top of this the government has recently announced a 4% cut in public spending across all departments in order to meet the increased military costs of suppressing the Intifada.

The Versailles ballroom disaster in Jerusalem, in which 23 people at a wedding celebration lost their lives, produced an enormous wave of anger. This was one of the worst atrocities ever inflicted on Israelis Ð but it was inflicted by Jews, not by Palestinians.

The ballroom floor collapsed because the cheap construction method was unsafe, because the owner removed supporting pillars so he could pack more people in and because the licence to function was gained by the greasing of palms.

As the reality of what had happened and why it had happened began to sink in there was a sense of outrage among ordinary Israelis. Their anger was directed against the Israeli establishment who were held to be responsible. When members of Maavak Socialisti, the Israeli section of the CWI, took to the streets of Jerusalem to protest they got a huge response.

Had a leadership been there to give expression to this anger this could have developed into a massive movement of ordinary people against the corrupt Jewish establishment. Unfortunately the Tel Aviv bomb one week later defected the angry mood, demonstrating the real role of individual terrorism which is to lower the consciousness of the working class.

Those who write off the Jewish working class will object that while there may be class anger on economic questions there is a closing of ranks and a universally reactionary mood when it comes to the national question. In fact there is a great deal of uncertainty among Jews, including among the working class, on this.

Socialist alternative

People can see that the peace process has failed and that war is increasingly likely. But there is also an understanding that war will solve nothing. The idea of short wars and quick victories now belongs to past generations. The more recent experience is of two Intifadas and of retreat from Lebanon.

Far from a closing of minds, a big section of the population are searching for an alternative to the twin dead ends of capitalist peace or capitalist war. The socialist alternative put forward by Maavak Socialisti - a socialist Israel and a socialist Palestine existing within a socialist confederation of the region - is the only way out.

The main objection raised is not that this is a bad idea, but that it is too far off. The answer to that is to bring it closer by building a powerful socialist movement among Jews and Palestinians to fight for it.

Iish Government Defeated on the Nice Treaty (2001)

by Robert Connolly

THE DUST still hasn't settled after the Irish government's defeat on the Nice Treaty referendum. Within the government, there are divisions on the issue of Europe. Statements from the finance minister, McCreevy, and the Attorney General, Michael McDowell, have been an embarrassment to the government. Clearly some individuals want to distance themselves from the whole fiasco, if not for ideological reasons then to safeguard their votes in the next election.

The government's plans for a September election now look less likely to come to fruition. They are justifiably nervous once again. After a relatively quiet period, compared to the corruption sagas of recent years, the government has been made brutally aware that they are not as popular as they would like to think.

The approach of the government to the referendum was seen by many as arrogant. In the early part of the campaign they seemed to have no conception of the idea that people might not support them. Their over-confidence turned to panic when it was becoming clear that the vote would be close.

Ill-informed and clumsy accusations against the wide range of different political parties and other organisations campaigning for a no vote of being bedfellows of 'Tory euro-sceptics' etc. backfired badly, another bad case of 'foot-in-mouth disease'.

Reports from the EU leaders and institutions that enlargement would go ahead anyway have clearly exposed the undemocratic nature of the whole Nice Treaty process. Romano Prodi's statements that enlargement cannot go ahead without a yes vote in a second referendum in Ireland will be viewed with suspicion.

The government's plans for this rerun of the referendum are seen as undemocratic as well. A second referendum would probably be after a general election next year. A rehashed version of the constitutional amendment including some protocol about neutrality could be put to the people.

There is a combination of reasons why the referendum was defeated. A historically low turnout and a ham-fisted yes campaign by the political establishment were important factors. Fianna Fail was unable to mobilise their electoral base particularly in rural areas. Some of the highest no votes were recorded in large working class areas of Dublin were the arguments of Sinn Fein, the Greens and the Socialist Party would have been a factor.

Most importantly the no vote was an anti-establishment vote and a vote against the government. The referendum was seen as an opportunity to send a message that people don't trust the main parties and feel that the government is out of touch. Ireland, of course, is not the only EU country where there is mistrust of the direction of the EU among large sections of the population.

Over the next period of time a mood could develop in some other countries for the people to have their say. Many feel that if some a referendum was held in Germany or France on the Nice Treaty it would be defeated also. This is not likely to happen at this stage but over a period of time the institutions of the EU can become more and more unpopular and become a focal point for discontent.

The Socialist Party ran a good campaign for a no vote. We organised public stalls, protests, press conferences and public meetings in the weeks running up to the vote. Despite all this work, most of the media coverage of the no side of the debate was focused in the Green Party and to a lesser extent, Sinn Fein. The 'No to Nice Campaign' was a temporary alliance of smaller but affluent right wing groups.

The large posters they produced did have some effect because of the sheer number that were put up in every corner of the country. But despite the statements of some media commentators, it is clear that there is not an anti-European mood among any significant sections of the population.

The second referendum will give another opportunity to the Socialist Party to focus in on the issues of privatisation, cuts and militarisation. We can outline the alternative to the bosses' Europe and spell out what we mean by a democratic socialist Europe.