Where to now for post-war Sinn Féin?

THEN AND NOW: Now that being in government, North and South, is a possibillity for Sinn Féin, the party's pragmatic approach will be to keep talk of a united Ireland in the realm of theory. But what will it stand for in practice, wonders Diarmaid Ferriter

Most people seem to accept that this summer's statement from the IRA was refreshingly clear and devoid of the ambiguity that characterised previous statements. Does this mean that come the autumn, Sinn Féin members will begin to speak with more clarity? Interviewing them, and listening to them being interviewed, can be a very frustrating experience. John Waters summed it up well in 1999 when he wrote, "all Sinn Féin leaders have a series of mantras and mini-speeches which they seek to get into every interview, regardless of the questions. The task of the journalist is to avoid setting off these reflex responses."

There was a time when the notion of talking to them at all was taboo, and when even those who wanted to talk to them were not allowed to. In November 1991, I was involved in organising a debate at UCD to which Gerry Adams was invited. Through a republican contact in the university, we sounded him out and he was quick to accept the invitation. Over 500 people turned up to hear him and others discuss the motion, "That this house would talk to the IRA to bring peace to Northern Ireland". It seems blindingly obvious now that such talks were essential, but back then it was a controversial contention; Sinn Féin members were still censored by the Irish government, and the British government's contact with the IRA was a secret. Brendan McGahon, the redoubtable Fine Gael TD for Louth, was invited to attend. A consistently vociferous critic of the IRA, he was keen to participate, but his party leader John Bruton refused permission, on the grounds that party policy did not permit the sharing of platforms with Sinn Féin. Vincent Browne participated and provocatively called for the reintroduction of internment, as Adams looked straight ahead grimly, like a prisoner awaiting sentence.

The atmosphere was tense, as a British soldier had been killed by the IRA in Belfast the night before. As Adams prepared to speak, there was a small amount of hissing and booing, but also a bit of nervous laughter. The majority of the audience listened carefully and had a good gawk at him – after all, most of the audience would never have seen him in the flesh, or indeed heard him, as a result of the broadcasting ban. Adams that day made a significant speech; it was, to my knowledge, the first time he had publicly stated in the republic that Sinn Féin was prepared to settle for less than a united Ireland. Of course, his speech also included the usual Sinn Féin mantras and complaints, most of them utterly justified. I recalled his speech when in Belfast last month, just before the IRA statement, as they were set to publicly accept that they too would settle for less than a united Ireland. In theory, of course, achieving that united Ireland is still what the republican movement is about; but in theory it is what most of us would like to see and what Fianna Fáil as a political party is supposed to be all about.

The practice is much different. Most people I talked to on the streets of Belfast last month, nationalist or otherwise, do not give a damn about a united Ireland. Neither do most people in the Republic, and they have not done for a very long time, which is why the IRA's war went on far too long. As far back as 1972, according to documents released by the British Public Records Office in 2003, the then Taoiseach Jack Lynch admitted candidly to the British ambassador that voters in the South "could not care less" about reunification. The same is true today, it is fair to surmise, which raises the issue of what Sinn Féin now stands for in practice, not in theory. History will record that it was the SDLP's vision for what could solve the Northern problem that became the accepted vision.

They have been remarkably consistent in this; indeed, at the 1991 debate mentioned above, a young Alex Atwood took on Adams and trenchantly dismissed any attempt to legitimise the IRA's campaign. Last month, Atwood was one of the few SDLP spokespersons that had any kind of visibility as he reiterated the same message he gave at UCD in 1991. It is difficult not to feel sorry for the SDLP; Hume bravely championed the notion of dialogue with the IRA when it was dangerous and unfashionable to do so, and his party paid a heavy price for it, having to watch the brilliant Sinn Féin PR machine reap serious electoral dividends, North and South.

But where does Sinn Féin go from here, and will they still manage to frustrate the interviewers? Will Sinn Féin need to employ a whole new language, mantras and mini-speeches that have nothing to do with their traditional refusal to condemn the IRA (as that won't be relevant anymore)? Will voters in the South be remotely stimulated by an election campaign by Sinn Féin that is based on achieving a united, socialist Ireland in time for the centenary of the 1916 Rising? Of course they won't, which is why Sinn Féin will be as pragmatic in its campaigning as any other political party seeking to double its representation, and that pragmatism will ensure that talk of reunification will remain in the realm of theory. More interesting now is what post-war Sinn Féin really stands for in practice.

In 1984, Adams admitted that the prospect of holding the balance of power in the Republic was "a tempting option". Back then it seemed a ridiculously fanciful notion; in contrast, the idea of Sinn Féin being in government, North and South, is not now so fanciful. But in power with whom, and on the basis of what policy platform?