Robinson, deputy leader of the DUP, is the rising star of loyalism heralds an era of super-violence against the catholic
THE IDEAL LEADER of the loyalist petty bourgeoisie in the occupied six counties
Ta shrewd, charmless, funamentalist, sectarian thug. In Peter Robinappropriately named Democratic Union- "!. presentiv the deputy leader of the
they have found such an ideal leader. Without question he is also the man ist Party, that the majority of the working class Invalists see as their leader.
It was Robinson whom the lovalist terrorits approached to negotiate on behalt of the prisoners during their campaign for segrega-
Republican pows; ho has tre:10n from quently appeared in public at marches and allies with leaders of the loyalist murder gangs; ho was also the man whom Shorts' vorkers chose to negotiate for them in the dispute over the display of sectarian, triumphalist regalia in the aircraft factory. Robinson is the new leader for a new period in Irish politics. An explanation of what he is, what he represents and where he comes from is an important contribution not only to understanding the apparent changes in loyalist behaviour in the past year or so — it is also an important element in understanding the changes in the Irish situation since the
Anglo-Irish Agreement. In their journal, An Reabhloid, (Summer 1986), the Irish revolutionary socialist organisation Peoples lollowing points Democracy makes about the aims of the the
British strategy in Ireland:
Britain wants to maintain a presence in
Ireland and extend imperialist economic and
political domination.
" Britain wants to preserve Unionism in the
North as the only firm base for their military
presence and as a bulkward against Irish
revolutionary forces and the unity of the
working class. : Britain wants to defeat the Republican
movement and crush the aspirations for
unty and independence among Irish
* Britain also wants to develop a new role workers.
lor the Trish capitalist class as managers of a
now Ireland', whose economy has been
rationalised and restructed to provide max
!! benefit from imperialism.
One would imagine that at least the first
considerable satistaction to Unionists, but three of these four points would give
this is manifestly not the casc. The essential
reason for their marches, withdrawal from
local government, murders, beatings and
burnings is that what Britain wants out of the
North of Ireland, and what the loyalists
want out of their statelet is not exactly the
same thing. Put crudely, Briain wants to
remain in Ireland as an imperialist power,
keep the place peacetul and stable enough to
make moncy. It is not concerned with the
political and social structures that allow this
1o happen, just as long as they function
eclarively smoothly. The people who live
there, however, cannot afford such detach
ment on the question of how imperialism
affects their lives. which suffers most from
British domination is the Catholic working The group
class. In every sphere of its existence, from 30 infant mortality rates to having their homes
gutted by petrol bombs, this is so. The group which benefits the most is the loyalist big bourgeoisic. Somewhere in between is the bourgeoisic. These are pople who sense that Protestant working class and petty they may imperialism's masterplan. Since the 1920s have the most to loose from they have believed that their police force, their marches, their jobs and their unques toned supremacy were inviolable. They may have lost the B-Specials, but they were given the UDR. There may be a Fair Employ- ment Agency but it has no real powers to do anything. Indeed, so close was the identity between the Orange State and its supporters RUC with arrested Orange bandsman Robinson sets the pace community in the north of Ireland. In the aftermath of the . Anglo-Irish Agreement, Robinson's ascendancy also signifies conflict between the loyalists and Britain. FRANCIS DEVINE assesses the outcome for the republican struggle. that an Ulster Volunteer Force, (UVt), spokesperson could say: "There is no essential moral difference between official government action and unotficial loyalist action in the struggle against terrorism and subversion'. Equally true is the statement: 'Many of our contacts with "Charlies" and "Delta" Royal Ulster Constabulary, (RUC), divisions have reported that the vast majority of grass roots constables were overjoyed at the
results of certain Protestant Action Force operations in recent weeks'. In fact, the loyalist terrorist groups see themselves as the unofficial auxiliaries to the state's repressive apparatus, doing, constable would like to do if only his hands what the avcrage police were untied. So does evervone else.
What has changed is that while British imperialism could withstand the IRA's milit ary struggle, Sinn Fein's growth and the mass radicalisation of the nationalist work ing class means that the Republican movement must be destroved. One of the preconditions for the destruction of the Republican movement is the existence of something to replace it. Clearly, British imperialism and the Irish capitalists can not replace it with a body which is committed to uncompromising anti-imperialist struggle. It will have to be the SDLI', itself heavily dependant upon Dublin's Department of Forcign Affairs (SIC). Strangely enough, even Robinson and James Molyncux of the Official Unionist Party (OUP) also reached a similar conclusion. Molyneux wrote: 'It is to be hoped... that we can consider rationally and maturely how co-operation can be developed between genuine political parties in Northern Ire-
land'. wrote: 'Not everyone in the Province identi- (Fortnight, 17/12/84). Robinson
fies with the constitutional actuality. Ways
must he found and mutually agreed which
encourage and gain their confidence'. (Port
night, 4/2/85). This, everyone agrees, is the
best way to ensure the survival of the six
county state. What neither the SpEl nor the British or
Irish governments, nor even apparently the
Unionist political Icaders had predicted was
the reaction the attempts to rationalise the
state would cause from the loyalist working
class and petty bourgeoisic. These are the
people who are in direct competition with
Catholics for jobs, housing, hospitals, even
leisure centres. It is an irrelevancy to pointor
that the Anglo-trish Agreement will not
provide a single job for working class
Catholics or disband the UDR. The point is
that the SDEP and Free State government are
spouting rhetoric about reform and equality.
Now the Orange supremacists, the small
business owners who lined their pockets
INIERNATONAL Negot Doperate 19%
through the Orange, Black and Masonic orders, the factory foremen who hired and fired through the lodges, the Orange labour aristocracy with their near monopoly of skilled jobs are all revolting against what they see as a threat to their position. For all those people their ascendancy in much more important than the union with Britain becuse that is what got them the job, the promotion, the nursery school...
However, Unionism is extremely heterogenous. There are dozens of loyalist political, paramilitary and religious organisations. With every new crisis there are more. This stems from the deformed nature of the Gerry Adams leading this year's anti-internment march Northern economy, trapped as it is between Britain and Ireland. A small local market caused an outflow of capital to Britain and limited the size of local enterprises. Hence the commonness of Victorian-style family firms which are neither perty bourgeois nor typical of twentieth century capitalism. Robinson, a former estate belong to this group, and this is one of the groups that would be in direct competition with Catholic small capitalists.
The very existence of these Protestant petty bourgeois groups is tied to the fate of their state. They are its Councillors and local their petty powers and privileges and their best ally 1s the Protestant working class
The other important faction in the lovalist camp is the big bourgeoisie. This is traditonally represented by the Official Unionist Party (OUP), of James Molyneux, Enoch Powell and Harold McCusker. In the campaign against the Agreement the CUPhas also seen echipsed by the DUP because essentially a parliamentary organisation. Molyneux himself appears to have given up the ghost and now retuses even to give press conterences. Furthermore, it is historically the organisation of the big Orange capitalist and landowners, more closely with British capitalism than those represented by the DUP and with much less to fear INTERNATOONA: No bOtober November 1986,
from the possibility of Catholic competi
However, since the mid-1970s its fortunes have been declining as the DUP's star has risen. This is the result of the fragmentation of Unionism since the fall of the Stormont parliament -- to date the high point of this phase of the struggle.
The 1979 clection was the first concrete evidence that Paisley's DUP had won a firm base in the Protestant working class at the expense of the Official Unionists. To do so they had to prove themselves sufficiently in tune with the psychology of their voters. Councillor Charles Poots is a good example:
'If I was in control of this country, it would not be in the same state that it is now. I would cut off all supplies, including water and clectricity to Catholic areas. And I would stop Catholics from getting social security. It is the only way to deal with enemies of the state'. Such is the authentic voice of loyalism and how much sweeter it must sound to unemployed shipyard work.
*the DUP won seats by
being even more blood
thirsty than the competition' ers than some middle class politician prattling about integrationwith Britain.
However, in 1979 the Dup was still a largely rural organisation. Paisley himself is from a farming community and sat on the Northern Ireland Assembly's agriculture committee. He is also a very good farmers' advocate in the Westminster and Europcan parliaments. His principle heutenants tended to be clerics trom agricultural areas such as Ivan Foster and William McCrea. The reason for this lies in the origins of the DUP which began as a loose confederation of groups. The central figures in many of these were fundamentalist ministers, mint-
Paisleys, who would have been seen as the natural local leader by many of their congregation. (There have been a number « such figures in loyalist history, generally co the most extreme fringes.) Robinson was founder member in 1975 and as the firs: full-time secretary was instrumental In transforming it into a mass party. During this time he built up his power base in Ease Belfast.
Robinson was clected MP for Hast Belfas! constituency in 1979, one of three DUP MPS, along with Paisley and John McDuade from the Shankill Road. (Even by the very stiff standards of unionist politicians McDuade was remarkably unsophisticated. An ex boxer, his only contribution to the elegant cut-and-thrust of Westminster debating was to shour, What about the Shankill?') Thus in 1979 the bur had won seats in two strongl working class constituencies by being ea more blood thirsty than the competition
One of the decisive factors in Robinson's victory was the support of the Ulster Defence Association, (UDA), whose mit?bers canvassed for him. Inroturnhehasbeen more candid about the extent of his collusion with lovalist terrorists than Paisley has. This may be because they operate mainly in Belfast, Portadown and Armagh and Paisler has to rely less heavily on them. More probably, however, it is because the forces that Robinson represents instinctively grasp that their lite is near its historical end. A social class is never more vicious than when
extinction, hence the close working relationship between the Robinson wing of the bur, the terrorist gangs and the Ulster Clubs led by Alan Wright.
Robinson is more typical of the new generation of second rank DUP leaders; men like Jin Alister, Alan Kane and Jim Weils Within the next few years (if their luck
the big names of Northern politics. None of them are clera i, although a large proportion of them are in the legal profession. (Perhaps this is » SE
Loyalist demonstrator on top of RUC barricade co-incidence, but this is an area where Catholics are well represented, particularly amongst solicitors.) This is the gencration that believes that it will sCC the long predicted civil war to exterminate Republicanism. The difference between this civil war and that threatened by Carson carlier in the century will be that the big bourgeoise would have no decisive role to play. In effect, it would be a series of large scale pogroms.
'in the campaign against
the Agreement the OUP
has been eclipsed by the
DUP' Northern Catholics are already getting al taste of what could happen. Indeed, the ultimate political response of extremist loyalism hasalways been the pogrom against Catholics. It is not possible for them 1o targer individual IRA members, so they attack the communities in rebellion. It matters little whether or not the victim is a Republican supporter.
Should such a situation develop - not even a full scale civil war — but only an escalation of the current wave of antiCatholic attacks, the British Government
will be forced to take sides. During the 1970;
Britain made no attempt to suppress the loyalist murder gangs because they had a central part in Its counter-insurgency
strategy. But if Britain takes on the loyalists,
it will also immediately face taking on the
Republicans at the same time, as nationalist 32 resistance tends to go over into an ottensive
XI
385against imperialism. A defeat, even at the hands of Britain, of the extreme loyalism now led by Robinson would strengthen the anti-imperialist movement immeasurably. But without the buffer of loyalist extremism the anti-imperialist movement could not so casily be contained. Britain cannot remann m Ireland without loyalism and the loyalists can not retain their position of supremacy without Britain.
Consequently, one of the central questions in the coming period in Irish politics is the resolution of the conflict between impenalism and loyalism. In the past, loyalists have shown themselves to be willing to kill RUCimen and engage the British Army in gun battles. Shoud a widespread upsurge occur, the MDR will almost totally go over to the lovalist rebellion. Despite its recent per formance, the Rur: would be too rooted in the insurgent population to be trusted by imperialism. Such a situation would lead to the creation of an independent state, which at the moment looks as improbably as it is impractical.
Much more likely, given the degree to which the soul and Free State government are willing collaborators and the weakness of the Republican movement's political responseto the Anglo-Irish Agreement, is that the British government will submit again to lovalist reaction. Every important demand being made by the forces that Robinson represents will be conceded This does several things. It preserves the position of British imperialism in Ireland. It is a substandial victory forthemost vicious and reactionary forces in Europcan politics. It is a catastrophie defeat for the Irish bourgeoisic,
john: Arthur Relies including the SDIP.
A victory on such a scale would give the loyalists two options as regards nationalism and the six counties. Either disregard the spiPas a political force completely and seck to destroy the Republican movement or, secure in their position after the triumph, attempt a modifico version of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The difference would be
'should a widespread
upsurge occur, the UDR
will almost totally go over
to the loyalist rebellion' that they would insist upon the SDLP being the loyal opposition in the six county state's new parliament, assembly, convention or whatever name is given to it. This was the message being given two years ago by Molyneux and Robinson. Then Molyneux could have expected to be Prime Minister. Now it would be Robinson.
By the strength of the resistance that he is leading, Robinson has managed to cut the ground from under the feet of three parties io the Anglo-Irish Agreement. He has ensured the he will be able to bring the SDIP into the new Stormont on his terms, forcing them to be more or less willing partners in the new government's campaign to eliminate the Republican movement.
The only problem is that nothing will have been solved. Should this perspective be proved correct in the short to medium term, it will only be preparing the way for another phase in the anti-imperialist struggle.
INTERNA BONAL No. t Ortotar/November 1986