On their long journey from armed struggle to slight constitutionalism, Sinn Fein (SF) have repeatedly been challenged by journalists and other political parties to condemn continuing IRA violence, including punishment beatings and attacks on political opponents. In nearly every case, when presented with fresh evidence of IRA violence, the party's spokespeople refuse to use the word "condemn".
Instead they try to deflect attention away from republican activities by placing them in a wider context of loyalist violence and historic injustice. There's nothing wrong with contextualising political violence, in fact I think it is vital to try to understand why these attacks take place. But contextualisation and condemnation are not mutually exclusive. There's no reason that you can't say that X is wrong and try to explain why it happened.
If a Shinner is pushed for long enough on the issue of condemnation, they are likely to respond with the well-worn cliche "the politics of condemnation achieves nothing". This line is the Provo get out of jail card. You see, SF want to "achieve" peace and justice. Condemning IRA violence does not help to achieve these things, so it's pointless.
Of course, the real reason that SF refuse to condemn IRA violence is because the two organsations are actually one and the same. They don't condemn because they approve. But let's take their argument at face value. I believe that the argument that condemnation achieves nothing is at once correct and seriously flawed.
On one level, condemnation of violence by political representatives is indeed pointless. Paramilitaries do not have to listen to what democratically-elected people think of their actions. They need a certain level of support, both active and tacit, in their communities, but they don't need democratic legitimacy. If the paramilitaries did listen to the people in their entirity, they would stop all violent acts immediately. But they don't listen and they don't have to. So condemnation of this or that action by politicians won't stop further attacks.
What's more, I feel that the phrase "the politics of condemnation" is a reference to British government policy during the long stagnation period from 1974 to 1993. During this time, the political process was largely frozen by the violence, but the British government failed to take the necessary steps to give the armed groups the political spce to move away from violence.
The one thing which successive British governments did do though was to condemn and condemn and condemn republican and loyalist violence. There must have been a well-thumbed thesauras somewhere in Westminster which senior British politicians used to find new ways to call the violence "horrible".
Politically speaking, that was pretty much all the British government did for long periods. And yes, it achieved nothing. Simply saying that something is wrong isn't good enough. As the sovereign authority in NI, the British had a responsibility to try to open up the possibility of dialogue. Instead they condemned.
So condemnation by itself is not a sufficient political strategy for anyone. But that doesn't mean that it's wrong to condemn. I would argue that politicians condemning violence, from whichever quarter, is vital to set the parameters of acceptable political action in a democratic society. The use of force to achieve political ends in NI was, and is, wrong. Politicians should never tire of pointing out this simple but vital point.
Not to point this out sends all the wrong messages to the paramilitaries. Not to speak is to speak. By not saying "this is wrong" you allow for the possibility that you may think that it's right. And by doing that, you give succour to those who still try to effect change with guns and baseball bats.
So when members of the SDLP are assaulted and intimidated for their participation on Policing Boards, as happened recently, it is incumbent on all parties to condemn these fascist tactics. Not to do so is to send the message, unwittingly or not, that such attacks are OK.
SF must understand this point because they themselves have been on the recieving end of this kind of treatment in the past. In the late 80s and early 90s a large number of SF members were murdered by loyalist paramilitaries. The two unionist parties frequently refused to condemn these actions. Yet they had no problem condemning other loyalist activity, such as going into Catholic bars and shooting people.
By their selective condemnation of loyalist violence, unionist leaders sent out the message that, in their view, killing Catholics was generally wrong, but not always. And of course, by sending out such a message, they gave a veneer of respectability to groups which operated on the fringes of unionist society.
The same is true today. When an attack on an SDLP member is met with silence from SF, the next attack becomes more likely. In recent times, SF have expressed their disapproval of these attacks, but still shy away from using the "c" word. Their reticence is not helpful to the creation of an entirely peaceful Ireland.