Sinn Fein's sliding support in South asks questions of Adams
First Minister Martin McGuinness, Mary Lou McDonald, Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams and TD Caoimhghin O Caolain. Photo: TOM BURKE
Monday July 27 2009
Thank God to have a Blasphemy Act which means we can all sleep safe in our beds. Thank God, too -- if that is not to blaspheme -- that no successful prosecution is likely to result.
Not all that long ago it would have been blasphemous in most republican circles to suggest that Gerry Adams could not walk on water, and a sin against the Holy Ghost to contest the view that Sinn Fein was at the beginning of a surge in support which would see it the dominant party in Irish politics, North and South, for the next generation.
That this has not happened is more a matter of concern for them than for others. The enthusiasm of those early days after the Good Friday Agreement has become somewhat jaded. After an initial surge, support in the polls, and electorally, has plateaued and on the evidence of the local and European elections, may have peaked. Then there is increasing evidence of disagreement in the ranks, both in the North, where there are dissidents disillusioned by the move into politics, and in the South by those who are critical of the failure to do so successfully.
The defection of a few councillors does not constitute a run on the bank. Of more moment is the loss of seats by active, articulate and energetic councillors like Daithi Doolin, or Sean Crowe's Dail seat, or the loss of Mary Lou's European seat to Joe Higgins, and the failure to benefit from public disillusion and disaffection with the government, and all in an area which should be their best recruiting ground.
Then there are the criticisms of Toireasa Ferris, after a highly impressive performance in the Euro election. In asking whether the party had any other policy than unification, she was seriously questioning the response of the leadership to political realities.
In one sense, Sinn Fein is no different from many another party at the same stage of development -- young members who joined with a different, more social agenda than the existing leadership, and older ones disillusioned by failure to stick to what they saw as core values. They also exemplify the difficulty for any new party of reaching critical mass before relapsing into the ranks of the also-rans. The difficulty for Sinn Fein is that it has lost the North as a main focus for activity. The decision to join the Executive reduced that issue to one of process and aspiration, while the acceptance of the principle of consent introduced a much less urgent time-scale, and a realisation among voters in the South that they now had much more urgent concerns.
The loss of the North as an issue also meant the loss of international interest, of a calling-card on the great and endless photo-opportunities which helped to maintain Mr Adams's high profile.
Against this there are indications of a growing doubt about the effectiveness of that leadership in the South, and whether Adams may even be something of a handicap. He took much of the blame for a poor performance at the last election -- not only for his demolition on TV by Michael McDowell, but for being out of touch with political feeling in the South and for having nothing to offer by way of economic policy.
Above all, Sinn Fein suffers from what is the life blood of a political party, and what keeps the troops in order -- the possibility of office. Even if it had the electoral weight, its economic policies (or lack of a coherent one) would make it a very difficult partner for any serious party.
The contrast with Sinn Fein in the North is striking. There, participation in government, and performance in it, has maintained morale -- despite dissident activity.
At local level, too, Sinn Fein has a cadre of young, hard-working and articulate representatives who beaver away at populist local issues. The party is comfortably in the lead for the nationalist vote, topped the poll in the European election and should hold its vote.
The SDLP seems unlikely to displace Sinn Fein, at least in the next election.
All this has lent assurance and a sense of focus to Sinn Fein in the North that is clearly lacking in the South, and to none more than Martin McGuinness, who has grown in stature in office and seems content to make a job of it.
It is also, like the DUP, shielded from the need to have an economic policy other than getting as much money as possible out of the British Treasury and from Europe.
Oddly, in all of this, Mr Adams, whose leadership was central to the transformation of the party and its role in the North, increasingly appears to be surplus to requirements. Foreign trips to promote reunification are reminiscent of de Valera when he lost office in 1948, and with the same purpose of talking to people abroad rather than the unionists at home.
Sinn Fein is a party badly needing to develop social and economic policies which will attack the problems in the South and attract support there, and also needing to manage the transfer of leadership from one generation to another.
But it is problematic whether a Northern leadership, honed in different political circumstances, can continue to attract support in the South, where the economic and social problems are so very different.
- Maurice Hayes
