Gilmore strikes the right note as his hero comes back into fashion

It may prove to be a good time to be in opposition given the economic uncertainty, broken general election promises on the part of the Government, a growing anger over political mismanagement and a sense that three terms in office has made Fianna Fáil insufferably arrogant.

DESPITE the fact that his Watchword of Labour was dropped as the party’s anthem in favour of Jim Connell’s The Red Flag, the ghost of James Connolly lurked in the background at the Labour party conference last weekend.

There seemed to be a sense that the party is embarking on a journey back to the future, and there is no harm in that. In 1998, the current leader of the Labour party, Eamon Gilmore, who led the Democratic Left team that negotiated the merger with Labour, declared they were going about “the unfinished business of Connolly: to put the left in power”.

Last weekend, Gilmore was determined to weave history into his conference speech when drawing together the various elements of his party’s identity. He made an unambiguous declaration of his socialism, but also married this with the other strands of the party’s history: “I believe that every person is equal. It is as simple as that. That’s what makes me a democrat. That’s why I am a socialist. And why I belong to a social democratic party.”

Invoking the historical roots of the party and the spirit of Connolly is a reminder of the Labour party’s longevity and its historical association with a man of unique intellect and activism.

It is also likely — given the centenary of the Labour party in five years and the promise of a €24 million blockbuster film on Connolly directed by Adrian Dunbar and with gritty actor Peter Mullan in the starring role — that Connolly will become very fashionable in the years to come.

For the time being, given the fact that the electoral alliance with Fine Gael clearly did not work to the advantage of Labour in this year’s general election, Connolly’s oft-quoted slogan that “Labour does best when Labour stands alone” will chime with party members. Alliance with Fine Gael or the each-way bet, as opted for by Ruairi Quinn in 2002, both failed to put Labour into government.

In that sense, there is a clarity now about this issue — articulated by Gilmore and enthusiastically backed by the members — that should leave them more focused on their own message and not having to waste time, as Pat Rabbitte had to for so much of the last few years, deflecting questions on whether or not he would go into government with Fianna Fáil.

Back in 1964, when the Labour party was contemplating its continued relevance to Irish politics and its intellectual foundations, TCD academic and broadcaster David Thornley, who was one of a number of intellectuals attracted to the party in the 1960s, and who became one of its TDs in 1969, reflected on the allegiances of the followers of the party: “Ask the Irish Labour Party supporter today what he believes in and he will most certainly not say, with Marx, the class war, the total smashing of the bourgeois state and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

“He will almost equally certainly not say (with clause four of the British Labour party) the ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. It is indeed unlikely that he will even say the welfare state. What he is most likely to say is ‘I follow the principles of James Connolly.’ ”

Of course, as Thornley recognised, few of the Labour party followers did anything of the kind, and as far as he was concerned the party at that stage was terrified of the word “socialism” and belonged to the “broad stream of the revisionist Social Democrat parties of the continent”.

Thornley was only 29 years of age when he wrote these words in an article exploring the history of the labour movement in Ireland, but that sense of youthful questioning of the relevance of the party and what direction it can go in, while also remembering its historical roots, is precisely what the party needs over the next few years if it is to rejuvenate itself and connect with voters, particularly on the issue of the future of the economy and marrying its economic policy with social justice.

It is true that the Labour party has a problem with the age profile of its TDs, but it is a myth that it does not appeal to young voters. In this year’s general election, according to the RTÉ/Landsdowne exit poll, it got 14% of the votes of the 18-29 age bracket and overall the party has been solidly increasing its appeal to first-time voters in the last 10 years — 10% of them voted Labour in 1997, 13% in the general election of 2002 and 16% in the election this year.

It may prove to be a good time to be in opposition given the economic uncertainty, broken general election promises on the part of the Government, a growing anger over political mismanagement and a sense that three terms in office have made Fianna Fáil insufferably arrogant. Gilmore was correct also to emphasise last weekend the labour movement’s history of bravely advocating what were initially seen as radical policies that were ultimately adopted by others.

James Connolly and the other pioneers of modern Irish socialism in the late 19th and early 20th century were determined to employ the words “republic” and “socialist” in the same context and refused to await the endorsement of middle-class Ireland. In the context of electoral success, Connolly’s record was pitiful, and at one of the early meetings of his tiny Irish Socialist Republican Party, one of the questions discussed was “Are we Utopians?”

Perhaps they were, but what is striking is how enduring and far-sighted the party’s programme was when it came to issues such as health, education and the welfare of the workforce.

NOT SURPRISINGLY, rhetoric abounded and putting socialist theory into practice was a sobering experience, but the enormous workload of Connolly and his colleagues reflected a determination to fight against the odds. Connolly maintained, with a measure of truth, that the small number of votes they received “were cast for socialism in spite of a campaign of calumny unequalled in its infamy”.

But the labour movement persisted in order to, as Robert Lynd put it, achieve “a richer individual life both for human beings and for nations”.

This is precisely why Connolly has proved to be a remarkably enduring icon of Irish socialism, despite the fact that he had little success as a politician. His reputation and legacy were instead secured by his unique intellect and prolific writings — many of which are still in print — his sheer command of Irish and international history and the insistence of the promoters of his legacy that his thoughts and words are directly relevant to the contemporary world. Plaques and statues commemorate him in Dublin, Edinburgh and New York, among other places.

It is clear that, as a writer, Connolly was lucid, penetrating, humorous and well researched. With considerable eloquence, he sought to awaken interest in the history of Ireland and its people and the lessons that could be learned about social duties and responsibilities. This is something that Gilmore and the Labour party need to do in a contemporary context.