Talk:Abstentionism

A worldwide view?

A quick Google search suggests that the word 'abstentionism', with the meaning given here, has only ever been used in Ireland. Elsewhere, as far as I can see, it means abstaining from voting, or voting 'none of the above'.
Perhaps, instead of trying to give a worldwide view, the article should begin with a statement along the lines of "Abstentionism is a political strategy used in Ireland..."
Scolaire 17:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Attacked" or "clashed"

The Nationalist Party withdrew from opposition "after the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) attacked civil rights marchers in Derry on 5 October 1968" or "after the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) clashed with civil rights demonstrators in Derry on 5 October 1968"? Well, the second wording is a nonsense - a "clash" between police and demonstrators is not a reason for withdrawing from opposition. Is the first wording POV? According to the Cameron report, the police "broke ranks and used their batons indiscriminately on people in Duke Street." That sounds like an "attack" to me. I would be open to discussing an alternative wording, but one that acknowledges the facts. Scolaire (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that the police and demonstrators clashed. Using a word like "attacked" is too evocative - the article isn't even about what the police and demonstrators did, nor the manner in which they did it. If the reader wants to know what happened, they click the link to the article about the incident and read further.

A citation that the events of that day influenced the Nationalist Party's decision to abstain would be useful by the way, if you have it. --90.197.80.125 (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that that is a fact. The fact, as I recall, is that the marchers - people who had assembled for a march, not a demonstration - stopped at a police cordon and asked to be let through, and were batonned for their pains. Now, "attacked" may be evocative (did you mean emotive?) but it is factual; if police hit people who were not hitting them - as Cameron says they did - then there was no clash. End of story. For a citation that the events of the day influenced the Nationalist Party's decision see "Holding the Ground: The Nationalist Party in Northern Ireland, 1945-1972" on the CAIN website [1], the three paragraphs beginning "As McAteer was to correctly conclude at the time, the aftermath of these events were undoubtedly going to usher in ‘a new phase in six County politics'." Scolaire (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Abstentionism in the 1840's

Abstentionism was used by Republicans as early as the 1840's, by the Young Irelanders. It became official IRB policy in the 1870's. Why is this not mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domer48 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be a worthy addition, if you have the sources and the time. Scolaire (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I will indeed a chara, will take a couple of days, I'm a bit busy at the moment.--Domer48 (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Did the Young Irelanders or IRB ever stand for election? I've added a ref to Charles Gavan Duffy; elaboration welcome. Charles Stewart Parnell was probably in the IRB and was definitely a non-abstentionist MP. jnestorius^(talk) 11:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So too was John O'Connor Power, a senior IRB member elected in 1874, a year before Parnell. He took his seat.--Damac (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

John O'Connor Power's election caused division among the IRB, and he was expelled by March 1877.--Domer48 (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And three years later, by 1879, the vast majority of the IRB movement rowed in behind John Devoy's New Departure policy, which saw more Fenians and ex-Fenians become MPs and take their seats in the British parliament.--Damac (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

From Thomas Francis Meagher of Young Ireland's speech at Waterford by-election 1848:

I shall not meddle with English affairs. I shall take no part in the strife of parties: all factions are alike to me. I shall go to the English House of Commons to insist upon the right of this country to be held, governed, and defended by its own citizens, and by thorn alone. Whilst I live, I shall never rest satisfied until the kingdom of Ireland has won a parliament, an army, and a navy of her own.sourcejnestorius^(talk) 16:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The most notable Young Irelander to state beforehand that they would not take their seat was John Mitchel in 1875. Mitchel was elected twice on large margins, but was declared non-illegible on both occasions. Ref Owen McGee, The IRB: The Irish Republican Brotherhood from the Land League to Sinn Féin, Four Courts Press,ISBN 1 85182 921 0 pg.53. I will get some ref's on William Smith O'Brien. In addition, I will get some on their policy on abstentionism, and that of the IRB--Domer48 (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Greater debate began to take place upon Irish nationalism, including upon one revolutionary idea that had been raised during the 1840s. This was that Irish independence might be achievable if the MPs at Westminster were persuaded to withdraw and unilateral set up an Irish government, which an Irish citizens’ defence force could then defend. This so-called ‘abstentionist policy’ was always favoured by two IRB leaders, John O’Leary and C.J. Kickham, and it would become the official IRB policy by the mid I870s." Ref Owen McGee, The IRB: The Irish Republican Brotherhood from the Land League to Sinn Féin, Four Courts Press,ISBN 1 85182 921 0 pg.39. McGee also cites letters of Kickham, as IRB president (DPB vol 1, 162-5), and O'Leary to Irishman (newspaper), 11 Jan. 1879, 20 Mar & 3 Apr 1880, in support of this statement. Just on a point of intrest, McGee has John Martin dying before Mitchel, which is wrong I belive. I will dig out the primary sources some time soon. --Domer48 (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

True. But, by 1879, many in the IRB movement rowed in behind John Devoy's New Departure policy, which saw more Fenians/ex-Fenians become MPs and take their seats in the British parliament.--Damac (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As regards who died first, it was Mitchel. John Martin, already ill, left London for Mitchel's funeral, which he made, and died himself a few days later.--Damac (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Mitchel died on the 11 March, John Martin died nine days later. A New Dictionary of Irish History from 1800, D. J. Hickey & J. E. E Doherty, Gill & Macmillan, CIP 13542 Pg. 310. I have additional references should you need them. --Domer48 (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I know. I don't dispute it, neither does Wikipedia. See A. M. Sullivan, New Ireland, 16th ed, n.d., pp. 404ff.--Damac (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"As regards who died first, it was Mitchel." I thought you were disputing it, thats all. John Devoy was the leader of Clan na Gael, and was assisted by the IRB in the New Departure. Are you saying that the IRB or Young Ireland did not have an abstentionist policy? I just don't understand the "But" in your post above? Should this not all be included, giving an historical background. I have a copy of The Resurrection of Hungary, by Arthur Griffith, should we include some of the reactions in Westminister to this Policy. I will post some quoted statements later. --Domer48 (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"As regards who died first, it was Mitchel" is pretty unambiguous.

I know about Devoy and the New Departure.

I've no problem with some mention been given to the ideological roots of the policy of abstentionism, but the article is really about abstentionism since 1918, as practised and preached. It's best if you update the article with your additions, and let the community treat those on their merits.--Damac (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I did not realise that it was only really about abstentionism since 1918, as practised and preached. I thought it was about abstentionism and the policy of abstentionism? There is not much point if I update the article then since we are only talking about abstentionism since 1918. Might I suggest that the title should reflect that? Apologies again. --Domer48 (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Just had a look at the article, and it seems that User:jnestorius has done a fine job in adding information on the ideological roots of the policy.--Damac (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd welcome more detail on the IRB policy debate. I don't see why the article should to be restricted to post-1918. PS I've separated the "Abstentionism vs walkout" section again to keep related posts together. jnestorius^(talk) 09:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In 1879, the IRB's John O'Leary on the founding of the Land League, knew that the Parnellite MP's would not adopt their "Hungarian Policy" that is the abstentionist policy. In a letter to the Irishman on April 3, May 8, and May 29 1880 he put forward this view. On April 3 he wrote:

"The best thing we could do would be to act like the Hungarians under somewhat similar circumstances: to refuse to send representatives to parliament at all. But this course would require an amount of public virtue we most certainly have not got at present and are not, I fear, likely to possess in any very near future. The next best course, me judice, would be to send men merely to protest and then leave the House, but that too is not at present, and probably will not be for a long time to come, within the region of what newspaper Solomons call practical politics."

Arthur Griffith's "Sinn Féin Policy", formulated 1905–07, (Griffith had been a member of the IRB) makes no mention of this IRB policy. No mention is made also of Griffith's notable work The Resurrection of Hungary,which outlined his policy in great detail. I think this would provide some useful background information, should it be included. --Domer48 (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Abstentionism vs walkout

If you can identify examples of candidates running for election and stating beforehand that they would not take their seats, then this should be mentioned in the article somewhere. I would argue that there is a difference in taking one's seat, then boycotting it for some reason or other (like the SDLP and Stormont), and indicating from the before the election that one would not attend the parliament in question (SF in 1918/1919). (Please don't see this as "stalking", as I've contributed to this page as early as 2 August 2006 and its on my watchlist).--Damac (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(I've moved this point to its own section.) I agree there is a distinction between abstentionism and walking out of parliament in protest. Different again is the resign-and-restand principle as with the 1986 Unionists. Most walkouts have been short-term tactics, but there may be cases where what began as a walkout later solidified into an abstentionist strategy. I don't know how much should be discussed in this article and what needs discussion elsewhere, perhaps even in a new article. jnestorius^(talk) 13:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusing - Sinn Féin

The article is rather confusing. It says in the Sinn Féin section

In 1986 Sinn Féin split over the same issue as in 1970. The larger group led by Gerry Adams abandoned abstentionism, while Republican Sinn Féin (RSF), led by Ruairí Ó Brádaigh retained it. Sinn Féin's first sitting Teachta Dála was Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin in Cavan–Monaghan in 1997.

So I thought Sinn Féin had abandoned abstentionism completely and were now participating in the Westminister parliament. But re-reading it again today, later it says:

SDLP MPs have consistently taken their seats in the Westminster parliament, in contrast to Sinn Féin MPs who refuse to take their seats there, as they refuse to recognise that body's right to legislate for any part of Ireland.

So I guess they're not. So what did they abandon and why did they split. Was this over "adopted non-abstentionist policies for elections to local authorities (next held in 1985) and to the European Parliament" that's mentioned earlier or something else? Either way, the article is rather confusing. Also, while included as a see also, it may be helpful to further discuss the Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom) issue. While partially a seperate issue, as I understand it this is also preventing them from participating in the Westminster parliament as they refuse to swear the oath. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've recast the 1986 sentence. The oath isn't really relevant, but I agree that it should be mentioned somewhere since many people incorrectly think it is. jnestorius^(talk) 07:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Effects of abstentionism

Has anyone ever published on the outcomes of the policy? Obviously abstentionism in Northern Ireland contrasted 100% with the involvement of former unionists in the Oireachtas of the Irish Free State, not all of whom were Protestant Nationalists. In contrast, when the Northern Irish parliament voted to exclude itself from the IFS in December 1922, no nationalist MP spoke out against it because they were all abstaining.86.42.197.226 (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Understanding the historical context of the opening paragraph being 19th century then shouldn't the opening paragraph say "Great Britain and Ireland" rather than "the United Kingdom and Ireland" as Ireland was part of the United Kingdom in the 1800's. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible contradiction

The article states "RSF has retained the policy of abstentionism from both Dáil Éireann and the Northern Ireland Assembly. RSF has not in fact contested elections for Dáil Éireann or Westminster". But it seems that in relation to the Dáil, RSF is NOT abstentionist, if the start of the article is correct in stating that in order to be abstentionist you need to contest seats (which RSF hasn't done with respect to the Dáil): "Abstentionism is standing for election to a deliberative assembly while refusing to take up any seats won". 21:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.195.241 (talk)

From RSF's view, the salient question is whether the decision not to stand was...:

1. ...a principled boycott [e.g. "we hate the so-called Dáil so much that mere abstentionism won't suffice and we refuse even to stand for election"]
2. ...or merely a tactic contingent on the circumstances of the election [e.g. "we don't have the money"; "our would-be candidates don't have the time"]

I would argue that whereas #1 is incompatible with abstentionism, #2 is not; the tactics may be different at the next election, in which abstentionist candidates may run without any sense of a policy U-turn. I agree that this view is inconsistent with a strict reading of the opening definition "Abstentionism is standing for election while refusing to take up any seats won"; more accurate might be "Abstentionism is countenancing standing for election while refusing to countenance taking up any seats won". OTOH that is a bit verbose and technical for an opening sentence. jnestorius^(talk) 17:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Actual abstention from 1900

It's clear that most of the parties in the 1800s that had abstentionist policies also didn't have any MPs elected who could then abstain. So that's all a lot of hot air. Then the First Dáil wasn't abstentionist because it was doing its own thing.78.19.208.109 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

What are they trying to accomplish?

Perhaps I just missed it buried in the text, but I don't see any explanation of why people would want to refuse to sit on a deliberative body. What does it actually accomplish? Does it deny a quorum? Is it a mere form of protest? It seems somewhat counterintuitive, and some explanation of what they hoped to accomplish or demonstrate by doing so would be very helpful, because it still makes no sense to me. So you have a grievance, and you address it by getting your man elected to the ruling assembly...and then refusing to attend or otherwise represent you in that body? Seems like the Southern States in the US tried something along those lines in 1861, and it worked out poorly in the end, because their opponents who remained simply used their absence to pass numerous bills contrary to their interest without them. I suppose if one doesn't have the votes to win a vote anyway anyway, abstaining allows you to boycott and therefore deny the legitimacy of whatever is passed contrary to your interests, because you refused to participate in the voting process. That seems to be the only way this makes any logical sense, besides as a symbolic gesture or act of protest.

64.222.90.118 (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)