#abstentionism

“II.

[...]

In programmatic terms our point of view has nothing In common with anarchism and syndicalism. We favor the strong and centralized Marxist political party that Lenin speaks of. Indeed we are the most fervent supporters of this idea in the maximalist camp. We are not In favor of boycotting economic trade unions but of communists taking them over, and our position corresponds to that expressed by comrade Zinoviev in his report to the Congress of the Russian Communist Party, published by Avanti! on 1 January.

As for the workers' councils, these exist in only a few places in Italy and then they are exclusively factory councils, made up of workshop delegates who are concerned with questions internal to the factory. Our proposal, on the other hand, is to take the initiative in setting up rural and municipal Soviets, elected directly by the masses assembled in the factories or villages; for we believe that in preparing for the revolution, the struggle should have a predominantly political character. We are in favor of participating in elections to any representative body of the working class when the electorate consists exclusively of workers. On the other hand, we are against the participation of communists in elections for parliaments, or bourgeois municipal and provincial councils, or constituent assemblies, because we are of the opinion that it is not possible to carry out revolutionary work in such bodies; we believe that electoral work is an obstacle in the path of the Working masses, forming a communist consciousness and laying the preparations for the proletarian dictatorship as the antithesis of bourgeois democracy.

To participate in such bodies and expect to emerge unscathed by social-democratic and collaborationist deviations is a vain hope in the current historical period, as is shown by the present Italian parliamentary session. These conclusions are reinforced by the experience of the struggle waged by the left wing in our Party from 1910-11 to the present day against all the manoeuvrings of parliamentarism, in a country which has supported a bourgeois democratic regime for a long time: the campaign against ministerialism; against forming electoral political and administrative alliance with democratic parties; against freemasonry and bourgeois anti-clericalism, etc. From this experience we drew the conclusion that the gravest danger for the socialist revolution lies in collaborating with bourgeois democracy on the terrain of social reformism. This experience was subsequently generalized in the course of the war and the revolutionary events in Russia, Germany, Hungary, etc.

Parliamentary intransigence was a practical proposition, despite continual clashes and difficulties, in a non-revolutionary period, when the conquest of power on the part of the working class did not seem very likely. In addition, the more the regime and the composition of parliament itself have a traditional democratic character, the greater become the difficulties of parliamentary action. It is with these points in mind that we would judge the comparisons with the Bolsheviks' participation in elections to the Duma after 1905. The tactic employed by the Russian comrades, of participating in elections to the Constituent Assembly and then dissolving it by force, despite the fact that it did not prove to be the undoing of the revolution, would be a dangerous tactic to use in countries where the parliamentary system, far from being a recent phenomenon, is an institution of long standing and one that is rooted firmly in the consciousness and customs of the proletariat itself.

The work required to gain the support of the masses for the abolition of the system of democratic representation would appear to be -- and is in fact -- a much greater task for us in Italy than in, say, Russia or even Germany. The need to give the greatest force to this propaganda aimed at devaluing the parliamentary institution and eliminating its sinister counter-revolutionary influence has led us to the tactic of abstentionism. To electoral activity we counterpose the violent conquest of political power on the part of the proletariat and the formation of the Council State: hence our abstentionism in no way diminishes our insistence on the need for a centralized revolutionary government. Indeed, we are against collaborating with anarchists and syndicalists within the revolutionary movement, for they do not accept such criteria of propaganda and action.

The general election of 16 November, despite the fact that it was fought by the PSI on a maximalist platform, has proved once again that electoral activity excludes and pushes into the background every other form of activity, above all illegal activity. In Italy the problem is not one of uniting legal and illegal activity, as Lenin advises the German comrades, but of beginning to reduce legal activity in order to make a start on its illegal counterpart, which does not exist at all. The new parliamentary group has devoted itself to social-democratic and minimalist work, tabling questions, drafting legislation, etc.

We conclude our exposition by letting you know that in all likelihood, although we have maintained discipline within the PSI and upheld its tactics until now, before long and perhaps prior to the municipal elections, which are due in July, our fraction will break away from the party that seems set on retaining many anti-communists in its ranks, to form the Italian Communist Party, whose first act will be to affiliate to the Communist International.

Dan Keenan wrote in the Irish Times in 2014 that John Hume’s famous ‘Irish Times’ articles (1964) helped redefine nationalist attitudes to Northern Ireland. Dan Keenan wrote:

“Fifty years ago, The Irish Times published a strong challenge to the nationalist consensus on partition which laid foundations for a new approach to Northern Ireland. The author was John Hume, then a 27-year-old history teacher from Derry.”.

Keenan added:

“Hume appeared fresh and different and used his opportunity to write a withering critique of the Nationalist Party and of Sinn Féin and to set out a radical – if not entirely new – approach. He argued for an acceptance of the northern status quo by Catholics with a view to changing it, an acceptance of the legitimacy of unionism, and a recognition that Catholic non-participation in public life linked to unionist discrimination jointly fostered injustice... This was a tearing-up of the 40-year nationalist consensus on partition and it was a national public airing of the principle of consent, the basis of the Belfast Agreement 34 years later.”

Irish Times writer Michael Viney who visited Northern Ireland in the 1960s was depressed by the people, he found he people downtrodden “but not by force of arms or imperialist domination”: 

“They are oppressed by armchair, atrophied attitudes to life and politics which they themselves are tricked into sustaining: on the one hand by a Unionist Party whose public attachment to power and privilege is often mediaeval in its cynicism; on the other by a corps of nationalists who, with a few exceptions, encourage slogans as a substitute for thought.”

Chief Superintendent for the greater Belfast area Brian McCargo reflected on his three decades as a Catholic in the RUC:

“If I had to think of one thing that troubled me, it's that there was always a tremendous threat against my family. 

My wife and I have raised our family as practising Catholics. We had to ensure our children attended church and went to Catholic schools and that was difficult, very difficult. 

When my eldest daughter went to grammar school on the Falls Road [a predominantly nationalist area], I was virtually precluded from going there such was the threat to me and her. 

Recently a Protestant colleague said: 'With all the risks the rest of us had to face, no recognition has been given to the fact that the risks faced by Catholic officers and their families were always that much greater.' 

It's true that if you get points for killing a police officer, you get double points for killing a Catholic police officer."

John Hume wrote in his first 1964 IT letter:

“It must be said at once that the blame for the situation which prevails must lie principally at the door of the Unionist Government. But the present Nationalist political party must bear a share of it.      

Good government depends as much on the opposition as on the party in power. Weak opposition leads to corrupt government. Nationalists in opposition have been in no way constructive. They have – quite rightly – been loud in their demands for rights, but they have remained silent and inactive about their duties. In forty years of opposition they have not produced one constructive contribution on either the social or economics plane to the development of Northern Ireland which is, after all, a substantial part of the United Ireland for which they strive. Leadership has been the comfortable leadership of flags and slogans. Easy no doubt but irresponsible. 

There has been no attempt to be positive to encourage the Catholic community to develop the resources which they have in plenty to make a positive contribution in terms of community service. Unemployment and emigration, chiefly of Catholics, remain heavy, much of it no doubt due to the skillful placing of industry by the Northern Government, but the only constructive suggestion from the Nationalist side would appear to be that a removal of discrimination will be the panacea for all our ills. It is this lack of positive contribution and the apparent lack of interest in the general welfare of Northern Ireland that has led many Protestants to believe that the Northern Catholic is politically irresponsible and immature and therefore unfit to rule.    

Bigotry and a fixation about religious divisions are the first thing that strike any visitor to the North. The Nationalist line of the past forty years has made its contribution to this situation. Catholics of all shades of political thought are expected to band together under the unconstructive banner of Nationalism. This dangerous equation of Nationalism and Catholicism has simply contributed to the postponement of the emergence of normal politics in the area and has made the task of the Unionist Ascendancy simpler. Worse, it has poisoned the Catholic social climate to the extent that it has become extremely difficult for a Catholic to express publicly any point of view which does not coincide with the narrow Nationalist line. Disagreement with, or criticism of the Nationalist approach – or lack of it – inevitably brings down upon one’s head a torrent of abuse. “Obsequious”, “Crawling”, “Castle Catholic”, “West Briton” are samples of the terms used.     

The result has been that many Catholics have been unwilling to speak their minds for fear of recrimination. The Nationalist press are the chief perpetrators of this situation. Witness the bitterness of their attacks on people like Messrs. Campbell, McGuigan and Newe. When one adds this climatic censorship to a similar one on the Unionist side one becomes clearly aware of how little freedom of thought or expression exists in Northern Ireland and of the tremendous obstacles in the way of the emergence of a third force. 

One of the greatest contributions therefore that the Catholic and Northern Ireland can make to a liberalizing of the political atmosphere would be the removal of the equation between Nationalists and Catholics. Apart from being factual, it ought also to be made fashionable that the Catholic Church does not impose upon its members any one form of political belief. In recent times, some Church leaders, realizing the danger to religion in the religio-political equations have been pointing this out.        

Another positive step towards easing community tensions and towards removing what bigotry exists among Catholics would be to recognize that the Protestant tradition in the North is as strong and as legitimate as our own. Such recognition is our first step towards better relations. We must be prepared to accept this and to realize that the fact that a man wishes Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom does not necessarily make him a bigot or a discriminator. Which leads me to the constitutional question.  

(The Constitution) Apart from providing the Unionist Party with valuable ammunition in the emotional times of an election, their attitude to the Constitutional position has lost the Nationalist Party the sympathy of liberal Protestants and has prevented themselves and their followers from playing a fuller part in the development the Northern Community. What’s more it has too often been an excuse for inactivity. Their present attitude to the question has been vague. While they will on the one hand attend at the unrecognized Parliament of Stormont and accept a salary for so doing they will refuse to be present at a function in Derry City held to bestow civic honour on an industrialist who had given substantial employment to their fellow Catholics.     

The position should be immediately clarified by an acceptance of the Constitutional position. There is nothing inconsistent with such acceptance and a belief that a thirty-two county republic is best for Ireland. In fact if we are to pursue a policy of non-recognition the only logical policy is that of Sinn Fein. If one wishes to create a United Ireland by constitutional means, then one must accept the constitutional position.”

The UUP report from 1968, ‘Northern Ireland, Fact and Falsehood - A frank look at the present and the past', wrote:

“The first Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland was a Roman Catholic. So was the first head of the Ministry of Education, and so were many other officials appointed at that time to senior posts. One third of all places in the Royal Ulster Constabulary were to be reserved for Roman Catholics.

By and large, however, Roman Catholics stood aloof, expressing their attitude through unwillingness to accept public duties, abstention from attendance at Parliament, and, at the worst, open attachment to organisations dedicated to the overthrow of the government and constitution. They insisted rigidly upon their own separate education system, making it largely Impossible for children to do otherwise than grow up in two separate camps.

The Roman Catholic Church, too, through its official leaders, has tended to identify itself with this attitude of standing apart. While heads of Protestant churches make the customary courtesy calls upon the President of the Irish Republic, no Roman Catholic Primate of Ireland has ever made an official call upon either the Governor or the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, even though the Primatial See of Armagh is in Northern Ireland. And no Roman Catholic chaplain has ever been appointed to the Northern Ireland Parliament.

The identification of religion with politics is well indicated by the fact that the controlling body of the Nationalist Party, which seeks the incorporation of Northern Ireland in the Republic, is the Catholic Voters’ Registration Committee. Constituency associations, as in the Unionist and Labour parties, do not exist among the Nationalists.

Opinions, however, have softened since the early days. Many Roman Catholics now recognise the benefits that come to Northern Ireland through remaining British, though comparatively few are willing to acknowledge this publicly. Many responsible Roman Catholics have been invited to play and are usefully playing a full part in numerous civic and public activities.”

The report continued:

“To appreciate the part played by the Nationalists, it has to be borne in mind that there are few parliaments anywhere in the world where there is as much opportunity as at Stormont for the ventilation of grievances.

In the 52-member House of Commons, a member may, virtually without restriction, put a question to any Minister for oral answer on any day with the shortest possible notice. There is exceptional freedom to raise matters on the Adjournment; and there is ample Private Members’ time during which Private Members’ Bills or motions can be discussed. There are also facilities for the repeated raising of the same issue in only slightly altered terms during the same session in a way that would be quite impossible at Westminster.

Yet Nationalism has contributed almost nothing of a positive character to the life of Parliament, and the columns of Ulster’s Hansard display repeated examples of its purely negative nature, mainly in the form of indiscriminate muck-raking, often in places where muck in the end is not discovered. Certain Nationalists, and members of fringe parties of an anti-partitionist character which are allied to them In opposition, make much use of the broad-ranging political "smear".

Thus in 1966, for example, on the insistence of a Republican Labour Member, Mr. H. Diamond, who had made a speech containing the gravest allegations against the police force, a public inquiry was held at a total cost of £35,000 from public funds. Six months later, Mr. W. F. Patton, Q.C., who conducted it, had to report, with respect to virtually all the allegations, that he found "no credible evidence" for them and that some were "a complete fabrication from beginning to end".

Again, Mr. Gerry Fitt, who seeks to create an all-Ireland Republic through his membership of two British Parliaments - Stormont and Westminster - has made numerous wide-ranging and damaging allegations, such as the existence of telephone tapping in Northern Ireland. This was officially denied, and Mr. Fitt was invited to produce a single shred of evidence. No more was then heard of the matter, for there was no evidence.

Other Opposition members have made it their practice to pose as responsible parliamentarians at Stormont, but to threaten and, by implication, encourage civil disorder and civil disobedience outside.

These attitudes are not justified by inflexibility on the part of Unionist Governments, whose legislation on a wide range of issues has been as progressive as any in Europe. It is not true that all changes sought by the Opposition are stubbornly denied by the Government. There have, for example, been major changes in relation to electoral law and electoral boundaries for the Stormont parliament Great importance was attached to such changes before the Government decided to make them. Now they are dismissed as trivial.

Certain Opposition Members seek not merely to denigrate their political opponents - which is perhaps no abnormal practice in politics - but to place every aspect of life in Northern Ireland in the most unfavourable light. The normal loyalties of party to country are, for the most part, noticeably absent.

For many years, although the largest Opposition party numerically, the Nationalists refused to be considered an official Opposition. For a brief period, from 1965 to 1968, they did accept this status. But even then the Nationalist leader, Mr. Eddie McAteer, was unable to bring himself to attend any Government function at which the toast of the Queen would be honoured or to attend such occasions as the state opening of Parliament at which the Governor, as the Queen’s representative, would be present.

These may be only matters of form, but the observance of conventional courtesies could have done much to help in the creation of a more normal political and parliamentary climate. And in 1968 the Nationalist Party once more resigned its official Opposition role.”

The report also said:

Up to now, they have been saying: 'All go home.' But now they're here, too. So either they go home as well, or they say what they want to do for their country and their children.