At the SDLP conference on 12 September, Colum Eastwood described Provisional Sinn
Féin’s refusal to take its Westminster seats as a “terrible dereliction of duty”. His argument
was that decisions concerning a future border poll will ultimately be taken in London,
“whether we like it or not”.
For clarity, I refer here to the contemporary party led by Mary Lou McDonald as “Provisional
Sinn Féin (P Sinn Féin)”, principally to distinguish it from Republican Sinn Féin, which takes
the abstentionist principle considerably further.
Eastwood’s criticism makes sense if representation is understood simply as exercising
whatever influence is available within the institutions that currently possess power.
Abstentionism starts from a different premise.
The Sinn Féin MPs elected in 1918 did not regard themselves as MPs who happened to
boycott Westminster. They sought a mandate to reject Westminster’s authority and establish
an Irish legislature in its place. Abstentionism was therefore never an absence from politics,
but a statement about where legitimate political authority lay.
P Sinn Féin today applies abstentionism specifically to Westminster, while participating in
Stormont and Leinster House. Whatever objections may be made to that narrower application
of the principle, neither institution requires its representatives to participate in the British
Parliament or swear allegiance to the British Crown.
Westminster nevertheless remains distinctive. Its MPs would be required to swear or affirm
allegiance to the British Crown before taking their seats, while Westminster retains ultimate
legislative authority over the Six Counties.
Eastwood argues that because decisions affecting Ireland are taken in London, Irish
nationalists ought to be represented there.
The Westminster-abstentionist argument starts from a different question. The issue is not
merely where power happens to be exercised, but whether an Irish representative should
participate in a foreign parliament which claims jurisdiction in part of Ireland.
An absentee leaves a seat empty through neglect.
An abstentionist leaves it empty deliberately, because taking the seat would mean
participating in an authority whose jurisdiction they contest.
Why does Sinn Féin participate in elections to the Westminster parliament if the party does not recognise the authority of that parliament? It makes no sense.
The people in Sinn Féin constituencies in Northern Ireland are not represented in any national parliament. After the 1918 election, at least people were represented in either London or Dublin, irrespective of which party they voted for.
The “first past the post” system in UK general elections gives Sinn Féin a disproportionate number of seats. Under a full proportional representation system, Sinn Féin would now have 5 MPs, rather than the current 7.
Tens of thousands of people who live in Sinn Féin constituencies, and who did not vote for that party, are not represented in any national parliament. That is anti-democratic.
Sinn Féin does not take part in a British parliament. They do contest elections north and south and for very good reasons. Remember Bobby Sands anyone? Who here is going to question his Republican credentials? Without the publicity and mobilisation these elections engender the struggle would have withered on the vine. I support the party’s stand on electoral politics. I would never support swearing an oath to a foreign monarch. I prefer to leave that to the SDLP.
If Sinn Féin was serious and principled about Westminster abstentionism, they would refuse to claim Westminster expenses. But the party regularly claims only £100,000 in Westminster expenses annually.
The party has always had a tenuous relationship with democratic values. They like to get their own members elected, but for decades they openly supported the criminal outfit that murdered numerous democratically elected representatives north and south of the border, as well as in Britain.
In the same year that Sinn Féin got Bobby Sands elected as an MP, associates of Sinn Féin assassinated the MP for Sout Belfast.
Consider it a protest strance Eoghan which opens the way to considerable finance.
Everybody supported political violence in the north. Everybody. Not just republicans. Name me a group and I will tell you which armed group they supported. I think maybe except the SDLP.