The Dangerous Folly of “No Political Solution” and the Irish Right

In every election, social media addicts jump up and down to declare this was Ireland’s “last chance”. 

Sometimes they’ll hurriedly throw their name on the ballot and run amateur campaigns, before declaring that the results were either rigged or making a Nero-like pronouncement that Ireland has made its choice and the Irish people can essentially go to hell.

The doom merchants who are preaching that the election results prove the Irish people are permanently “asleep” and that some sort of radical extra-political solution is required have come out of the woodwork. It’s easy to be a crank on the sidelines sniping at others’ election results and proclaiming the futility of electoral politics. But none of the “alternative” solutions are remotely realistic. This must now be addressed head-on, with a historical analysis and a frank assessment of “extra-political” action possibilities.

We can all think of some of the online figures promoting a “no political solution” course. Some are unhinged individuals who say it out loud, whilst others are wilier and more cautious about saying what they really think. But both are ultimately united in their magical thinking, which boils down to the proposed solution that Ireland needs something akin to a violent seizure of power.

There are a few reasons why some people advocate an opposition to engagement in electoral politics. One is that we don’t have sufficient time to build a majority to win. Another is that it’s rigged by the system anyway. A refreshingly honest rationalisation is that it’s too much hard work to put in the plodding work to get elected to public office and that even then you’re just one Nationalist out in the cold and will not be taken seriously. There may be kernels of truth in all these criticisms, but the alternative offered is much more far-fetched.

If the Irish people are so “asleep” that they won’t countenance voting for a Nationalist candidate, how are they going to respond to an attempted coup d’état by an extreme minority of a minority? Putting aside the reality that such a “campaign” is just not winnable, the reality is that nobody would be accepting of a coup by a fringe minority political tendency that does not contest elections due to the fact it doesn’t have sufficient public support. If – unrealistically – a takeover was launched and managed to attain some temporary “success”, an essentially

revolutionary government would not be tolerated by the European Union, the United Nations, our neighbour in the United Kingdom, or any other international force on Earth. It’d be swept from “power” overnight and its ringleaders would all end up in the Hague.

Dissidents Versus the Free State

To explain why an armed takeover is completely unrealistic, we must look briefly at the history of the Irish state itself and how it responded to such threats. The Irish state was born of a Civil War between State forces and Republicans. 

Initially, in 1922, Republicans had superior manpower and arms and could in theory have overpowered the pro-Treaty government – they didn’t do it because they were internally divided, with many hoping for reunification with the pro-Treaty side. Nonetheless, the 1922-23 conflict cemented the Irish State’s foundations. The threat of radical republicanism remained a motif throughout the decades that followed. Government figures like Kevin O’Higgins were assassinated by Republicans (1927) which led to further State repression and the creation of a vast security apparatus.

This security apparatus is not a legacy of the past – it was necessary during the 1969-1998 period, and it remains in situ – as seen for example in the form of the Special Criminal Court.

The Irish State faced challenges to its foundations from the Blueshirts and the IRA in the 1920s and 1930s. Post-Second World War, as the IRA regrouped and became a threat again, it was dealt with sternly on all occasions. The National Government led by Fine Gael and Labour of the 1970s was infamous in its treatment of Republicans – with terms like “heavy gang” falling into popular usage.

But the IRA’s failure to overpower the State was not just the result of the reality that the State is well-equipped to deal with it coercively. The Irish people simply have no truck for unrepresentative groups that would dare to lay claim to power, like the IRA historically did. The “old” IRA of the War of Independence period had a popular base of support, was a large organisation (although one lacking arms), and its mission was supported by the majority. By contrast, the Provisional IRA of the Troubles period lacked a popular mandate. It was a smaller, tighter and better-armed underground army. But the PIRA’s armed struggle never seriously challenged the stability of the Irish State.

Modern-day fantasists’ coups

This all begs the question of how Ireland’s modern-day armchair generals can seriously suggest that the Irish State is vulnerable to an armed takeover by some sort of paramilitary formation drawn from the most extreme corners of the Irish right-wing? 

As I have outlined above, since 1922, the State has faced enemies that were far better armed and had a much wider base of support than the contemporary Irish right does.

The rejoinder to my question may well be that the situation will change dramatically due to an impending global economic crisis, which will result in extremization and a demand for a “radical” solution. This is daydreaming. Even in a situation where there is a global recession – including a very severe one – it does not lead that the outcome will be mass disaffection and a defection of the Irish people from the normal act of democratic elections towards favouring armed takeovers by the most extreme fringes of the right. In fact, the State will exercise very tight control. Those making predictions on all-night X Spaces of an economic catastrophe resembling Mad Max or a Zombie apocalypse are simply away with the fairies.

Strangely, the figures who seem to favour such a “no political solution” route also seem to overlap with the most ardent online supporters of Nazi Germany. Need it be said that this ideological identification is completely alien to Irish people’s thinking, and is in fact universally off-putting? It must further be contextualised that in Weimar Germany the Nazi Party tried its hand at “armed struggle” and putsches which led to Hitler being placed in prison and his party facing near total destruction.

Hitler’s route to power was by treading the path of parliamentary politics and building the Nazi Party into a mass-political party. The SA brawled on the streets, but the seizure of power by the Nazis was enabled ultimately by the decision of President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler chancellor because he was the leader of the largest party in the Reichstag and was apparently now capable of working with other right-wing parties. His seizure of power was not by violent revolution – when he tried his hand at this it brought his movement to the brink of ruin. It is therefore bizarre that those favouring modern-day revolution and proclaiming their eternal allegiance to the dead German Fuhrer should adopt a strategy which Hitler himself abandoned as hopeless.

In short, the 2024 Irish general election results certainly do not underscore the idea that Ireland is “finished” and that the only avenue open to Nationalists is to retreat into fantastical schemes of bloody takeovers and revolutions. This is utter delusion. Those who promote such a path are grossly irresponsible. The final destination of such a path is not government buildings, but a cell

in Mountjoy jail. And unlike Hitler in Lamberg prison, being a fringe extremist figure languishing in jail will not gain massive public sympathy – it will just ruin your life.

In case it needs to be stated overtly: not only is it lunacy to plan, organise and lead an attempted armed takeover of the antifragile Irish State against the will of the people, it is also fundamentally immoral.

Furthermore, a madcap hypothetical Nationalist coup is not comparable to the Easter Rising. 1916 was justifiable because the Irish people did not have the means to vote for a Republic; for decades the Irish people had overwhelmingly voted for Home Rule and it was repeatedly denied to them. Then the Irish were dragged into the First World War. Within the unique global moment of the war and the inevitable reshaping of the world that would result, it was justifiable to organise and lead the Rising. There was a genuine chance of success, certainly, if German arms and support materialised. In addition, it was a rebellion against the British Empire. Two years later the Irish Republic received a popular mandate from the Irish people. 1916 is not at all comparable with the kinds of disturbing plots that I sense are likely being dreamed up around kitchen tables by dwindling cohorts of desperados.