Debates

The rise of Sinn Féin poses several puzzles. The first is the puzzle of its sudden re-emergence after years of being in the political doldrums. The fact that its rise is based on a misunderstanding is one of the choicest ironies of the era. Not all would see the resurrection of the party as a mystery. Hart believes that it replicates the flowering of the nationalist movement in 1879–82. The second question concerns the revolutionary status of the Sinn Féin experiment. Fitzpatrick upholds the revolutionary status of those years 1916–20 and more widely to 1923. One could argue that, just by existing in the form it did, it was revolutionary. Abstaining from Westminster and establishing a new political tradition puts the episode in a category of its own. It is easy, however, to overlook the traditionalism of the experiment and be completely taken in by the narrative of revolution. In no way did the new men make a tabula rasa of existing systems and start over – much was drawn from British parliamentary and civic tradition and procedure. Augusteijn has it that the whole nationbuilding process was ‘profoundly influenced’ by British political culture. Hart points out that their ‘sophisticated political machine’ was inspired by the Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP). In relying on familiar systems, Mitchell argues that they showed much prudence. Furthermore, the absence of any social component to this revolution is notable. Labour, famously, stood aside in the general election of 1918, thus writing themselves out of the major historical traditions.