The future of the SDLP

The present political difficulty of the SDLP is that it comes as a result of its own success. The party’s draft proposals of September 1971 have been acted upon in large measure. Unionists have accepted the principle that the north-south dimension is a necessary constituent of political progress, epitomising the nationalist aspiration of Irish unity. At the same time the Republic has given up any constitutional claim of jurisdiction over the north. There is influence of northerners in the south, both in the Senate and in the office of the President. Sinn Fein has accepted the principle of consent, albeit under a suspicion of pragmatism. Most importantly, there is a fully inclusive assembly operating with a non-oppositional model of joint government. The present electoral difficulty may be due to this success for two reasons. One, as other parties accept our policies, they become more acceptable to our voters. Two, since just such a transformation of the political environment was the focus of the party for so long, and is now achieved, the question is: has the party fulfilled its function?

The simple answer is yes. The SDLP have shown Sinn Fein the political power of persuasion, of argument and international pressure. They have shown how the mechanisms of government, local, national and international, and media, can operate to highlight favourably a political cause. Through the Hume/Adams dialogue, John Hume helped Gerry Adams join the debate from a point of due respectability. Having persuaded the British government of the need for an inclusive agreement, the unionists were persuaded in stages. Now we are at the logical terminus of this journey. The police are being depoliticised, and the British army are being removed. The parties have come together in complex inclusive democratic institutions, but without any military threat. With peace, is there any longer a need for a peacemaker?

The argument might run: If you want a unionist party, accept the unionist party of greatest electoral strength; those who are actually most powerful in government; and who have the best negotiating clout. If you want a nationalist party, accept the one who used to advocate violence, unlike yourself, but who now have the best organised political machine, because it used to be an army; those who have the most single-minded determination to get what you want; and who are also the most powerful nationalist party in government. Why weaken the position when all there is left is negotiation? Grant support to the extremists of your side, even as a reward for agreeing with you and turning away from violence. But there is another argument based on realities independent from political pay-off.

The less obvious, more complex answer is no, the party has not fulfilled its purpose. A political party is a collectivity with a specific philosophy. As Simone Weil has said, collectivities are unique and cannot be traded or merged with that which it stands principally against. A political party is living only in the sense that it has a goal assented to by its members, without which it dies and passes into history. But it is also a compact with those who have peopled the party in the past, and those who wish to be fed by its values in the future. Sinn Fein’s life as a political entity is secure as its purpose is based simply on the goal of Irish unity. As this seems along way from being realised, they shouldn’t suffer any similar sense of identity crisis soon.

Conversely, the SDLP must recognise that their mission will never actually be terminal. The concepts of peace and justice always open up the future. The SDLP is needed as the genuinely socialist, humanist party of plural democracy. It is needed to promote the philosophy of social justice and to promote the belief in the beauty of diversity. It is needed to profess genuine respect for the principle of democratic consent, a principle which entails that there is not simply one preordained future of our country, but many possible ones. The SDLP has lessened the atmosphere of violence, while helping to raise living standards; they have shown patience in the face of outrage, while passionately pursuing justice for families; they have worked tirelessly in parliament and waited for peace. They know that governing is a duty, not a reward; and that without the moderate plural democrats on both sides, an inclusive government may not survive many political storms. Without its voice, certain truths go unspoken and many people unrepresented.