Irish nationalism, perhaps to a greater extent than the nationalisms of most other European countries, has always had a spiritual and religious quality to it. It is no coincidence that the Irish Republic was unilaterally proclaimed on Easter weekend, 1916. Nor is it coincidence that the first full sentence of that proclamation does not declare a Republic in the name of the living but explicitly proclaims it in the name of “God and the dead generations from which she (Ireland) receives her old tradition of nationhood”.
In most countries, nationalism is explicitly populist. It is for the people. It comes from the people. When wondering why the Irish nationalist movement is not as electorally successful as movements in other countries, I mention the proclamation because it is the foundational document of modern Irish nationalism and it is perhaps the most elitist, anti-populist document ever written by a nationalist movement.
It goes on to say, that first opening sentence of the proclamation: “Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom.” The language is interesting: A whole nation is speaking through the seven signatories, via a process that is unclear, and at the same time summoning the people to the flag. There is no pretence there that the people stand behind them. Otherwise, they would not have had to be summoned. Further, even the very title of the document makes this clear: It is not a proclamation from Ireland to the world, but, in the original all-caps, a proclamation from
“THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE IRISH REPUBLIC TO THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND”.
You are being spoken at, in that document. Not for.
The proclamation is a very revealing piece of writing in that it never, not once, pretends to speak for the Irish people as one. We may have adopted it, in latter generations, and we may now venerate it, but the language is clear: A named group of nationalists, rather than the nation, are declaring independence, and stating their entitlement to “the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman”, which it they “now claim”.
These are not accidental quirks of language. We should honour and respect the 1916 rebels by assuming that they chose their words carefully, and with aforethought, in the most important document that any of them ever published. The language around the establishment of the nation, for example, couldn’t be clearer:
“Until our arms have brought the opportune moment for the establishment of a permanent National Government, representative of the whole people of Ireland and elected by the suffrages of all her men and women, the Provisional Government, hereby constituted, will administer the civil and military affairs of the Republic in trust for the people.”
The island of Ireland, to this day, remains partitioned because of the continued desire of a majority in Northern Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom. Therefore, there are those who argue and yet believe that “the opportune moment for the establishment of a permanent National Government representative of the whole people of Ireland” has yet to have presented itself, and that “The Republic” is a separate and distinct entity to the “free state” Republic of Ireland, which remains in the spiritual if not administrative care of a provisional Government of unelected nationalists. This belief is much more widespread in Irish nationalism than is perhaps understood, outside the state or within it.
It would be foolish to believe that Conor McGregor’s big interview with the American youtuber Tucker Carlson taking place in time for Easter Weekend is simply a coincidence of timing.
Many international observers – the very sharp Conor Fitzgerald for one – have observed that one of the strengths of Ireland’s otherwise disparate anti-immigration movement is the way in which it draws on the specific history of Irish nationalist mythology to inform its instincts and rhetoric.
In no other European country, for example, are asylum accommodation centres routinely referred to as “plantation centres”. The Irish anti-immigration movement speaks the language of the proclamation, and of 1916, both as conscious strategy and instinctive religious remembrance: It still claims to be the struggle of the ordinary people and The Republic against a capricious and foreign enemy, but spoken “through us”. There is a reason that the tricolour and the proclamation and invocations of the Republican dead are central to the aesthetic of the Irish anti-immigration movement.
This is also a healthy explanation for all the splits: The tradition of Irish nationalism has always allowed and encouraged the true voice of the nation to be expressed through the voice of a chosen few. It is hardly surprising therefore that so many within that tradition believe themselves to be the chosen few, and everyone else to be a usurper or a false leader.
Yet – and here’s the rub – the Irish anti-immigration movement remains to date one of the most electorally unsuccessful of its kind in Europe. In part, I would suggest, because it is relatively uninterested in persuasion.
If you ask a devoted follower of Conor McGregor – and there are many to be found if you spend any time at all on the Irish corner of the internet – what the best case for his newfound political involvement is, they will tell you something like this:
They will say that Conor McGregor, whatever else he may be, is a figure with truly global and international reach. They will say that when he commands the White House Press Room on Saint Patrick’s Day, he has an unparalleled ability to bring the anger and despair of Irish populists to a vital global stage, and reach tens of millions of Americans to tell them “the truth” about Ireland. They will further say that in so doing, he puts enormous pressure on the Irish Government and political establishment to listen to their concerns about immigration, free speech, and so on.
Note the thing that has not changed here: Like previous generations of Irish nationalists, seeking support for “the struggle” abroad is now taking precedence over winning popular support for “the struggle” at home.
Anyway, much of what they say is of course true, so far as it goes, except for one thing: The idea that McGregor has in some way “put pressure on the Irish establishment”.
What, I wonder, is the evidence for this?
It is, no doubt, a thing that is widely believed by those who wish to believe it. And yet if you ask them, you will find no area of Irish public policy that they can say has been changed or is likely to be changed as a result of McGregor’s interventions. Nor could they point to a political party that has changed its rhetoric in response to his political activism. Beyond the general vibes and dozens upon dozens of people insisting that things have changed, actual evidence of change is thin on the ground.
But if you want evidence to the contrary, it is there: Asked their opinion of McGregor in an opinion poll taken by the Sunday Independent two weeks ago, fully 90% of Irish people surveyed said that they would not even consider supporting McGregor for public office. Worse again, over 60% said they would be less likely to vote for a party or candidate that even helped him get on a Presidential ballot. The figure for people who might consider supporting him? Seven per cent. Seven.
Here’s the thing though: Popular support has never truly mattered to Irish nationalism. That is the curse of its history. The attraction of the cause has always been its purity, rather than its popularity. The enemy has always been compromise. This country fought a bloody and vicious civil war over compromise. The compromisers won, and the purists lost.
The language of the proclamation, however, remains apt: Today, those who call themselves Irish nationalists are quite genuinely echoing the beliefs of the men of 1916. “the Provisional Government, hereby constituted, will administer the civil and military affairs of the Republic in trust for the people.”
As then, so today: Nationalists are administering the flame of patriotism in trust for the people, waiting for the public to one day come to them, and in the meantime placing outsized reliance on their “gallant foreign allies”. Rather than going to the public and being willing to make a case.
The problem is: There’s zero evidence that the public have any interest in coming to them. Which is why it might be time to put the old mythologies and reliance on the aforementioned gallant foreign allies to one side, and listen, for once, to what the Irish people are actually saying.