An interview with Anthony Coughlan, founder member of the Connolly Association, Civil Rights activist, Irish Sovereignty Movement and author of several books including "Fooled Again?". >From IRIS Magazine of November 1988. IRIS is a publication of the Republican Movement. CIVIL RIGHTS: LOOKING BACK IRIS: WHEN AND WHY DID YOU JOIN THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT? Coughlan: I was not directly involved in the campaign, as I lived and worked in Dublin at the time. Such indirect connection as I had arose from the fact that in the late sixties I was assistant secretary of the Dublin Wolfe Tone Society, the secretary being John Tozer, and edited its occasional bulletin Tuairisc. The Wolfe Tone Societies were formed in 1963 to commemorate the bicentenary of Tone's birth. There were societies in Dublin, Belfast and Cork. They sought to bring together people of labour and republican background to discuss and encourage anti imperialist activity. The meetings which led to the establishment of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association *NICRA* on January 29, 1967 resulted from the coming together of the Belfast Wolfe Tone Society, whose key members were Fred Heatly, Jack Bennett, Liam Burke and Alec Foster, and some local trade unionists, principally Betty Sinclair, Noel Harris and Brian Graham, acting in their personal capacities. This development was naturally welcomed by the society's members in the South and by nationally minded people generally. Its potential was discussed in Tuairisc, which used to be circulated to opinion leaders in labour, trade union and republican circles. I took part in the Coalisland to Dungannon march in August 1968 and was present in Duke Street, Derry on October 5th when the RUC's assault on the Civil Rights demonstration brought the movement to world attention. But this involvement was no more than that of an interested visitor from the South showing solidarity. Before then, when working in England from 1958 to 1961, I had been active in the Connolly Association which pioneered the effort to expose the injustices of the unionist regime in British labour and trade union circles in that country. The CA is the oldest political organization of the Irish community in Britain. It believed that the lack of civil liberties and democracy in the Six Counties could become the Achilles heel of unionism. In the period I was involved with it, it covered the 1958 Mallon and Talbot trial, won considerable support among Labour MP's in the House of Commons for the release of republican internees in the aftermath of the 1956*1962 IRA Border Campaign and held a series of marches across England to draw attention to Britain's responsibility for her Northern Ireland "political slum." These marchers walked behind a banner of a map of Ireland, with the slogan "Ireland One Country" written across it. They were modest enough affairs, a couple of dozen Irish men and women giving up part of their annual holidays to try to show what the British government was permitting Brookeborough and Co. to get up to in the Six Counties. Even though they were met with indifference and ridicule rather than brickbats, these can truthfully be said to have been the first Irish Civil Rights marches. I took part in them, including one 250 mile twelve day trudge from Liverpool to London via Manchester and Birmingham, with anti unionist meetings being held in each town along the way. One was younger then! That was how my interest in democracy in the Six Counties started. IRIS: WHAT HAS THE CAMPAIGN ACHIEVED? Coughlan: It achieved such basic democratic rights as one man one vote (sic) and an end to the property franchise in Six County and local elections, as well as an end to gerrymandering and the introduction of majority rule in Derry, Fermanagh and other local councils. It led to reforms in housing allocation. It exposed the abuses of the B Specials and the Special Powers Act and various forms of discrimination against nationalists which the unionist governments carried out with impunity since 1921. Politically, it exposed unionism before world opinion and internal British public opinion in quite a new way, winning international sympathy for Northern nationalists, part of the political majority in Ireland who had been turned by partition into a permanent minority under the rule of their political opponents. It showed that Unionist control in the North could not exist unless bolstered by a political administrative apparatus which was rooted in religious sectarianism and bigotry. British governments had sustained that system for 50 years. The Civil Rights Movement led to a squeeze on the Unionist Stormont regime from the popular movement in the North and from a British government which realized that public opinion in Britain and internationally would no longer tolerate what had been going on. IRIS: WHAT HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED AND WHY? Coughlan: Despite some improvements, discrimination against Catholics is still widespread, especially in relation to jobs. Hence the current relevance of the MacBride Principles, In key civil liberties areas the abuses of the direct rule administration in London have replaced the abuses of the unionist government, and the former are much harder to remove. The Special Powers Act has gone but its most draconian provisions are reincarnated in the Emergency Provisions Act. instead of the B)Specials there is now a whole new apparatus of repression: Diplock Courts, Prevention of Terrorism Act etc. Some of these are of course the result of new circumstances which have come about since 1969. Politically, I believe the main failure was the inability of the movement for democracy and civil rights either to win over or to neutralize a section of the Protestant population in relation to Catholic/nationalist demands. At least some of those responsible for initiating the Civil Rights campaign hoped that its political effect would be to divide unionism between "moderate" and "extremists", winning some of the former to the nationalist side on civil rights issues, isolating the Orange Paisleyite element and so opening up the possibility of influencing over time at least a section of erstwhile unionist opinion to adopt a more positive attitude towards a United Ireland. This would not have happened immediately of course, but with the apparatus of government supported sectarianism destroyed, unionism, which was sustained by it, was finished. The challenge was to see if one quarter or so of the Protestants could be won over or neutralized, initially on civil rights , later on other issues pointing in an all Ireland direction. If that could have been done it would have given a majority within the North for Irish unity, achieved peacefully or in a way which it would have been hard for Britain to block, no matter how much it desired to. For a while it seemed as if the Civil Rights campaign might bring it off. Unionism did divide between O'Neillites and Paisleyites, with Paisley out on a limb. Of course Paisley dominated the unionist stage though as a backbencher at Westminster instead of prime minister at Stormont, that stage being nowadays more modest. Certainly for republicans who were involved, civil rights were never seen as an end in themselves. They were seen as remedying real abuses which oppressed people, while simultaneously opening up a way to shatter Ulster unionism, which had been a monolith for 50 years, and advancing the possibility for the triumph of democracy for the whole of Ireland. Looking back I think that "democratic rights" might have been a more accurate term than "civil rights" which was of course fashionable at the time because of the American Civil Rights Movement. For the fundamental wrong is denial of their democratic rights to nationalists, both the political majority in Ireland as a whole and the political minority within the North. This derives from British imposed partition itself and must continue as long as partition remains. IRIS: WHY DID THE CAMPAIGN HAPPEN? Coughlan: There was bound to be an explosion sometime, when the people decided to tolerate the intolerable no longer and found a way to act. In the 1960s a new generation in the Catholic community found the old Nationalist Party leadership no longer adequate. After the 1956 Border Campaign was over Republicans began to get involved in mass political agitation against the different political manifestations of British rule and neo colonialism in Ireland. For England to in the 1960's the Orange Card was no longer as serviceable as it had been in the past. England has always looked on Ireland as a whole, not just the North, seeking to maximize her influence or control on the whole island and not just part of it. As the 26 counties grew more prosperous during the Sixties, with British firms investing there more and more, and as London and Dublin sought EEC membership together...good relations with the South became relatively more important for London. Hence Secretary for Northern Ireland O'Neill was, so to speak, given his orders by his English political masters to clean up the unionist act and cultivate better relations with Irish Prime Minister Sean Lemass. Another factor was that in Britain itself the work of the Connolly Association and the Campaign for Democracy in Ulster had significantly discredited support for unionism in labour circles. This reduced the room for manoeuvre of the British Government. They could no longer run the Six Counties in the old way. Why did the North explode politically in 1968 rather than some other year? My own view is that it was a real tragedy that the Civil Rights Movement did not get off the ground in 1964 or 1965 when conditions for it looked promising. For a time there seemed to be a chance it might do. In May 1965 the Belfast Trades Council, a mainly Protestant working class body, held a conference to discuss organizing a campaign on civil rights, gerrymandering and the Special Powers Act and to demand an inquiry into the working of the Government of Ireland Act of 1920, which expressed Britain's responsibility. The republicans were at this conference and were well recieved. But nothing came of it because of foot dragging by the Northern Ireland Labor Party. If the movement for civil rights had got going then rather than three years later, it would have been under the auspices of the largely Protestant Trades Council. Some of the mistakes of the 1968/69 movement might have been avoided and a trade union sponsored campaign might have had more success in neutralizing or winning over some grass roots Protestant opinion. In retrospect I think those lost three years were crucial. They gave Paisleyism quite a new momentum, especially the events associated with the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Easter Rising in 1966. In that period the impatience of republicans understandably increased. Perhaps if Civil Rights had got going earlier the gains might have been greater, especially on the political side. One cannot be sure, of course; these are might have beens. The real scandal though was the failure at all times of the British government and parliament, which had overriding responsibility and authority, to insist on basic rights and democracy, without the people of the Six Counties having to go through hell in order to obtain quite modest gains. IRIS: WHAT DO YOU THINK WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT OF THE CAMPAIGN? Coughlan: I would say the mass demonstration organized by the Citizens' Action Committee in Derry on November 16th 1968 when 15,000 Derry people, including at least some Protestants, showed what disciplined mass action and competent leadership could achieve. It was a tremendous political and moral victory, coming only six weeks after the Duke Street events. Unionist Home Minister Craig had banned any civil rights demonstration within the Walls of Derry. There had been thorough preparation by the huge crowd outside the walls. The Citizens Action Committee explained their tactics in several pre march meetings. When the march, which was illegal, reached the line of RUC men, negotiations began. The committee were determined to give the police no excuse which would have enabled the authorities to call on the troops and turn the whole thing into a riot. The RUC could do nothing in the face of a disciplined 15,000. The CAC insisted on a token contingent being allowed through the police cordon to enter the city while the rest of the crowd filtered through the walls to hold their meeting. The sheer magnitude and discipline of this demonstration convinced the unionist diehards at Stormont and their London masters that this really was a movement with a difference. The gerrymandered Derry Corporation was abolished the week after and O'Neill announced his reform programme on November 22. Of course this success was easier in Derry than it would have been in Belfast. There were no Paisleyite mobs in the background. There were also better Catholic*Protestant relations in Derry after the joint fight they had made against losing a university, two railway stations and a cross channel ferry as a result of unionist discrimination against the city in the previous few years. IRIS: Did the Civil Rights campaign go too far, too fast? Coughlan: I think it is undoubted that the tactics of the People's Democracy, who were mainly young and inexperienced students without any organization structure, contributed to raising the sectarian temperature, especially in the months after the Derry demonstration referred to, which ultimately drove the Civil Rights Movement back to the ghetto. This was not their intention of course, but it was the inevitable consequence of their action in the context of the time. I would like to emphasize that the People's Democracy of the late 1960's, unlike the organization which bears this name today, had no formal membership or organization. It was based on what they called "mass democracy", where anyone could come along to take part in a meeting and where decisions taken at the beginning could be reversed by another vote at the end , when the composition of those attending had significantly altered. With enthusiasm and bravery but the political inexperience of students, PD went in for "propaganda by the deed" instead of the disciplined mass action. It was ideologically opposed to the kind of stewarding which headed off politically damaging riots in Derry and Armagh and which necessitated good preparation beforehand. Also some of the leading PD spokespersons put forward socialist demands, which might be desirable in themselves but were unachievable in the Six Counties context, thus causing divisions among those who could otherwise unite on what was achievable. Paisley and his colourful sidekick, Major Bunting were out to provoke of course, so as to discredit the Civil Rights Movement, and took full advantage of the opportunities which were offered. I think the most accurate and dispassionate account of a controversial period is to be found in the Cameron Report, "Disturbances in Northern Ireland" (1969). It describes each incident of the exciting months in detail. After O'Neill announced his reform programme on November 22, the NICRA and the Derry Citizens Action Committee called a halt on marches over the Christmas period, with the aim of lowering the temperature and testing O'Neill's capacity to deliver. This was politically sensible if there was to be any attempt to keep some good will in the Protestant community and to counter the effects of Paisley's fantasy about the whole Civil Rights Movement being an IRA plot. It was in these circumstances that the People's Democracy, after a series of meeting at which decisions taken at earlier, larger meetings were reversed by later and smaller ones, decided to hold the Belfast to Derry march beginning on New Year's Day 1969, which was assaulted by the Paisleyites at Burntollet Bridge. No one can withhold admiration from the bravery and determination of the young people marching but the political effects were very unfortunate. I would personally agree with the judgement of the Cameron Commission, which received evidence from all the key participants, including the PDs:"For moderates this march had a disastrous effect. It polarized the extreme element in the communities in each place it entered. It lost sympathy for the Civil Rights Movement and led to serious rioting in Maghera and Londonderry. It divided the Civil Rights Movement...(Cameron, p.47) This was followed by the People's Democracy march in Newry on January 11, 1969, whose organization was chaotic and which ended in a riot, while police stood by smiling and international TV cameras filmed some of the marchers burning police tenders. This further damaged the image of the Civil Rights Movement both internationally and, more importantly, in the eyes of the Northern Protestant population. The sectarian temperature soared and Paisley and the Orangemen were in their element. From then on it was downhill all the way, in my view, until the events of August 1969, the attempted pogrom in Belfast and the Battle of Bogside. It was back to the ghetto with a vengence. Of course the prime responsibility for it all lay with Westminster and the British government. THey were desperately anxious to shore up their local unionist puppets instead of legislating for the civil rights demands over their heads, which they could have done at any time in Westminster through a Bill of Rights. They resisted to the utmost every call for that. One must also recognize that it would have taken extraordinary discipline, a much more unified leadership and remarkable good luck for the complex and many sided civil rights activity to avoid raising sectarian passions in the circumstances. Which is why, as I said above, the real tragedy may have been the failure to get Civil Rights off the ground a few years earlier, before Paisley had time to fill up the sectarian tinder. IRIS: WHAT HAS BEEN THE EFFECT OF THE CIVL RIGHTS CAMPAIGN ON TODAY? Coughlan: I would say the most important general effect is that civil rights and the political victories it gained gave new confidence to the Northern Catholic community after 50 years of 'croppies lie down' rule from Stormont and Westminster. There could be no going back to a situation where unionist political Protestantism would abuse and discriminate against the Catholics again. There can be no going back to that. The Civil Rights Movement also destroyed the instrument, a unionist majority government at Stormont, through which Britain had rules the Six Counties and kept it securely within the United Kingdom since 1920. In 1971 Britain replaced that instrument with the instrument of so called "direct rule". Under the Hillsborough Agreement they would in turn like to replace that means of holding on to the North with a new instrument of an SDLP-Paisley unionist coalition, which would share whatever power and perks the British might decided to dole out on the basis of continued membership of the UK. More generally I think that the democrats in the North today can learn political and organizational lessons from both the successes and failures of the Civil Rights campaign. In my opinion the principal such lessons are the following: *The political potential of disciplined, well organized mass action; *The fact that this can only come about when large bodies of people are moved by a widely shared sense of grievance or injustice which unites them; *The fact that the potential of mass action can only be realized when there is a competent political leadership capable of formulating and expressing these demands which unite and move people to activity and which at the same time have the potential of carrying people further, once inital victories are gained and popular morale and political consciousness are raised thereby; *The need to win allies and supporters for the underdog causes by means of that disciplined mass action, competent political leadership and good public relations. Today just as in 1968, Irish democrats who want their country united and independent, because they are weaker than the British government which is the main obstacle in the way, must either compromise or find allies. It seems to me that today, just as then, the relevant such allies are: a. Organized political opinion within Britain itself, primarily in Labour and trade union circles, which is sympathetic or potentially so to the cause of democracy in Ireland; b. International public opinion; c. Those among the Protestant and unionist population who may realize that they are mere pawns in English government policy to keep a territorial hold on Ireland, regarded with ill disguised contempt by their political masters in London, and who have the potential of glimpsing the political power and self respect they would gain if they were to move towards their nationalist fellow countrymen in a joint struggle for democracy throughout the whole of our island.