1916 centenary a time for reflection not celebration

The Rising was an act of armed rebellion by an extremist group outside the mainstream of nationalist politics

Manning the barricades during the Easter Rising – “independence was secured by violent struggle, in which most of those killed were Irish”. – Photograph:   Walter Doughty, the Manchester Guardian’s first staff photographer.

Manning the barricades during the Easter Rising – “independence was secured by violent struggle, in which most of those killed were Irish”. – Photograph: Walter Doughty, the Manchester Guardian’s first staff photographer.

 

The Easter Rising was indeed the catalyst for the creation of an independent Irish State, as Ronan Fanning wrote in the concluding article of The Irish Times series on 1916, but does that mean we should be proud of it?

The event itself was an act of armed rebellion by an extremist group outside the mainstream of nationalist politics, and with no electoral mandate. It came at a time when the state – the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland – was in all-out war with Germany. That war had the overwhelming support of Ireland’s democratically elected representatives to the UK parliament. The leaders of the rebellion had sought and received aid from Germany.

The rebels no doubt showed bravery in openly, and in uniform, confronting the authority of the state and its armed forces. Even before the executions there were signs of some public sympathy, even admiration, for their courageous stand in the face of inevitable defeat. But they were still ideologues with no electoral support, prepared to kill and destroy in pursuit of their political aims at a time when unprecedented progress, albeit stalled by the war, had been made by democratic processes towards the goal of an independent Ireland.

Armed insurrection

Should, 100 years on, a modern parliamentary democracy, committed to the rule of law and peaceful settlement of all disputes, celebrate as the seminal event in its history an armed insurrection by a small minority with no mandate?

Should a state with a long history of sporadic armed challenge to its authority be celebrating such an event? Should it do so when there are still organisations and individuals who believe their political aspirations are such that they entitle them to kill and destroy in pursuit of them?

Veil of heroic sacrifice

Would it not be more appropriate to honour Grattan, O’Connell, Butt, Parnell and Redmond, who worked peacefully through the democratic means open to them, and enlisted massive public support for nationalist goals, than to worship, as nationalist Ireland has done for most of a century, at the shrine of violence cloaked in the veil of heroic sacrifice?

Most praise of the Rising in the Irish Times series is based on its undeniable role in the rapid achievement of independence for most of the island. Thus the desirable end justifies the illegal and undemocratic means?

The Rising ensured independence was secured by violent struggle, in which most of those killed were Irish. That violent legacy was evidenced even more tragically in the fratricidal Civil War, when once again the ideologues believed the virtue of their ideals counted for more than the will of the majority. The long shadow of the gunmen of 1916 has helped inspire IRA campaigns in practically every decade since 1922, and still does so today.

The Rising, it could be argued, was a catalyst to partition, in that it did not deliver an independent united island. Partition was on the agenda before 1916, but the insurrection made it inevitable. It was the men of 1916, five years on in the treaty negotiations, who maximised their demands for a degree of independence that ensured that partition would be both a physical border and a greater border between minds.

Much is written of the failure of post-independence politicians to live up to the ideals of the men of 1916, but those politicians were themselves “men of 1916”. Some were veterans of the event, almost all, in both major parties, claimed its mantle. They still do. Now Sinn Féin is again a major party, with, in many ways, a stronger claim to that mantle.

The centenary is surely a time for reflection, not celebration. Dennis Kennedy is a former deputy editor of The Irish Times

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
GO BACK
Error Image
The account details entered are not currently associated with an Irish Times subscription. Please subscribe to sign in to comment.
Comment Sign In

Forgot password?
The Irish Times Logo
Thank you
You should receive instructions for resetting your password. When you have reset your password, you can Sign In.
The Irish Times Logo
Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.
Screen Name Selection

Hello

Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
Forgot Password
Please enter your email address so we can send you a link to reset your password.

Sign In

Your Comments
We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Standards. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or by filling out this form. New comments are only accepted for 3 days from the date of publication.