IIG: In your talk yesterday about women and the Irish struggle, you noted that in the years leading up to Easter 1916, there were three political movements–nationalism, socialism, and feminism–that crucially informed the Irish political landscape as well as influenced the language and philosophy of the Proclamation of the Republic, which guaranteed "religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens."⁴ Activists in the early decades of the twentieth century, for example, were involved in the fight for national independence, union representation, and suffrage⁵. With the Uprising in 1916, the national question eclipsed labor and suffrage, and in the wake of the Irish War of Independence in 1921-2 and the Civil War in 1922-3, the idea of a feminist, socialist Republic quickly faded.

Sinn Fein emerged out of this early nationalist, socialist, feminist history, yet today, at least according to the British and U.S. press, Sinn Fein is commonly referred to as "the political wing of the IRA," and viewed primarily as a nationalist, Catholic organization or simply adjuncts to terrorists. Very few people in the U.S., for example, would think that Sinn Fein has a labor or feminist history or agenda. Could you talk a bit about Sinn Fein’s history as a political organization, as well as its commitment to socialism and feminism, as well as nationalism?

DM: Sinn Fein has had different phases of activism. From its establishment in 1906 to the time of the Rising in 1916, it was mostly a club for cultural nationalism. After the civil war until about 1970, Sinn Fein was in existence almost exclusively as a support network for the armed struggle. During the civil rights movement in the six counties, Sinn Fein was initially tied into support for the armed struggle in terms of selling republican newspapers and propaganda6, but it didn’t really have a political agenda as such. I think the hunger strikes really galvanized Sinn Fein into becoming a political party as opposed to a movement in support of an armed struggle. The hunger strikes of 1980-1⁷ were an immense key to change in the political movement within Sinn Fein because since 1981, there has been a big influx of people into Sinn Fein with a purely political agenda as opposed to aligning themselves with and supporting the armed struggle. I think that would mark the separation of Sinn Fein and the IRA⁸. [Ed. See Mules' comments on the importance of the hunger strikes for the development of the Trade Union Department and their impact on the party's stance on Gay and Lesbian rights.] Obviously Sinn Fein and the IRA are still interlinked in the sense that both organizations have the same aim: an independent, self-determined Ireland. But since the hunger strikes, Sinn Fein developed a political strategy and the IRA just continued in its way. I do understand that the IRA has also developed political perspectives and has changed in its idea of what targets should be⁹. As I’m not a member of the IRA, however, I’m not sure; that’s just my understanding.

So during the 1980s, Sinn Fein started organizing as a political party. Every year since 1981, we have had an AGM [Annual General Meeting or Ard Fheis] where motions are debated, particularly around the area of social and economic issues. Any issue that people want raised may be debated. After motions are raised and debated, then our policies are developed. We actually have a huge range of policies that are very radical. In our constitution, for example, our primary aim has always been that we want to create a secular, pluralist Ireland¹⁰. The separation between church and state reflected in the Sinn Fein Constitution is an issue that was clearly developed as a result of the experience in the twenty-six counties.¹¹

Our goal of a secular, pluralist Ireland has naturally led us to questions of what sort of Ireland we want to create. There would be quite a big grouping of people within Sinn Fein who would feel that the only way forward is to develop a socialist perspective. That’s socialist in terms of an Irish context, which might not mean the same as "socialist" for North Americans or British people; it would have to be within an Irish context. Our idea of socialism would be intent on creating conditions for people that give them parity of esteem; equality of job opportunities, where there are jobs available; and equality in terms of minority rights, wherever people would be in a minority. [Ed. See Mules' comments on minority rights in terms of solidarity connections with Mexican workers and in terms of Sinn Fein's position on Gay and Lesbian rights in Ireland]

We also feel that there needs to be a link with workers because we would argue very strongly that the mass of the working class actually belong to trade unions. But the sad thing that has happened over the years, and we would argue that partition has caused this, is that the trade union in Ireland has not debated, or taken on, or looked at the issue of the national question; it only concerns itself with social and economic issues. Sometimes the trade union will concern itself with human rights abuses but very rarely. The trade union movement would argue, for example, that to debate issues concerning partition or independence or self-determination would divide the working class. Our argument in Sinn Fein is that the working class are already divided by partition. Unless we challenge partition and argue for the removal of partition and the removal of the British in the six counties, the working class are going to remain divided because partition gives the loyalists¹² that emotional guarantee of feeling better. These pro-British Irish workers, as I would term them, believe that they have more opportunities than Catholic members of the nationalist community. [Ed. See Mules' comments on the history of Sinn Fein's Trade Union Department. See also her comments on how partition has influenced reproductive rights ]

Sinn Fein does have a problem of how to galvanize the trade unions. First of all, very few of us in Sinn Fein–a tiny minority–are actually in the trade union movement. From the nature of our nationalist history in the six counties, very few of our members in Sinn Fein are actually employed, so therefore they can’t be in trade unions¹³. Sinn Fein’s lack of representation in trade unions is largely due to the fact that nationalists in the six counties have consistently experienced job discrimination and very high unemployment. In the twenty-six counties, moreover, even trade unionists who would be supportive of Sinn Fein’s nationalist position would not speak out because their union constitutions would not allow them to raise political issues. In my own teachers’ union in Derry, for example, the union constitution prohibits me from discussing political issues. One thing that we want to challenge all the time–and we can do this through the trade union councils because they are more radical blocks–is to actually try to change the Irish Congress of Trade Unions’ Constitution to allow the inclusion of a little word called "political." Then we could be allowed to debate political issues as well as social and economic issues. This year at our congress’ new general meeting, we saw a change: for the first time, it wasn’t only trade counsels that were arguing for the right to engage in political discussion; we actually had the support of two or three big block unions. So there’s change there.

So that leads us on to the issue of feminism within the republican movement. Again, everything has to be understood in context: Ireland is a very patriarchal, very conservative society. Women, particularly in the twenty-six counties through their 1937 constitution14, have simply been regarded in terms of the family or in terms of their relationship to men. To challenge those traditional roles takes a lot of education and a lot of movement and a lot of debate. Within Sinn Fein, I think we’ve done very well as a political party. We have the most radical policies in support of women of any political party in Ireland.¹⁵ I do believe we are the only party that actually debates a whole range of social issues around women’s rights and women’s involvement within the party. There’s a constant debate going on–particularly since the mid 1980s–about women’s role within the republican movement. Women have always been active, and not just as backup to the men; women have always been there in terms of leadership as well. What often happens, however, is the media and the various governmental representatives focus exclusively on the male leaders, the one or two male leaders of Sinn Fein, and not the wider leadership of the movement. To combat this external and internal gender bias, we have now guaranteed within the movement positive discrimination for women. In Sinn Fein’s National Executive body, out of 40-45 places total, a third of the places are guaranteed or reserved for women. I think that sort of positive discrimination–although it’s not ideal–is necessary in the society that we live in in Ireland. [Ed. See Mules' comments on the history of Sinn Fein's Women's Department ]

We also have a very strong feminist block within the movement that is constantly challenging the status quo and moving issues on. For example, in the on-going peace process negotiations, when our five member group was going up to Stormont, the old Northern Irish government building, of the five people who went to negotiate, two were women: Lucilita Bhreatnach, Sinn Fein’s general secretary, and Siobhan O’Hanlon, a member of the party’s Belfast Executive and a close adviser to Gerry Adams. They are very active women, Lucilita and Siobhan, and yet the media have never questioned them, they’ve never asked them anything.¹⁶ It’s always Gerry Adams or Gerry Kelly or Martin McGuinness that they’ve asked the questions of. We have tried to insure now that anytime there’s a demonstration or other political event where a woman is in charge, the men will refer the media to the women organizers and not attempt to answer their questions. Another important point to note is that we have 13 organizing departments within Sinn Fein and seven of those are actually headed by women. The biggest of those–publicity and education–are headed by women. So women are right in there. It’s just a matter of challenging public and media perceptions. This problem of men representing political movements in which women are key players is not limited to Ireland: it’s a global experience. It’s happened in South Africa, it’s happened in Palestine, it’s happened with the Zapatistas, this lack of recognition on the part of the outside world of the role women have to play in liberation struggles.