Marking Time

Ernie O’Malley fought with distinction in the War of Independence and his organisational skills and military ability played a significant part in the struggle. He took the anti-Treaty side in the civil war that followed and was imprisoned from 1922 to 1924 for his efforts. He was uncompromising in his commitment to Irish Republicanism. Although he was elected a TD in the 1923 election he had no time for politics -he saw his role as purely a military man- and turned instead to the intellectual life of the artist. His most celebrated works are his biographies of the War of Independence (On Another Man’s Wound) and the Civil War (The Singing Flame). He describes the events of the time with an artist’s touch, offering an imaginative, compelling and multi-layered narrative and an intellectual depth not found in other memoirs of the period. Both books are essential reading for anyone interested in the events that led to the foundation of the Irish State.

Richard English’s biography goes beyond merely recounting the events of O’Malley’s life. Using O’Malley as a start point he explores many aspects of Irish political and intellectual thought, among them the ideology of militant republicanism and the attitudes to arts and culture in independent Ireland. The picture he draws is complex and full of contradiction.

Most poignant is the gulf between O’Malley’s dream of an idyllic rural Ireland and the dreary, deprived and soul-destroying reality of his life there. After he was married he bought a farm in Burrishoole in County Mayo but found it tough going without the basic comforts of home life such as running water. He found the local labourers impossible to work with and eventually refused to hire them. More significantly he lacked the intellectual stimulation he needed, far removed from the big cities where he had access to galleries, theatres, books, and the company of like-minded individuals.

O’Malley had a vision of an intellectually stimulated Ireland with a flourishing arts and culture scene. He was an avid collector of paintings, and was a friend of Jack B.Yeats and Samuel Beckett. However, his vision was compromised by the censorship of the state and by the apathy of the general public who had little time for, or interest in, the more esoteric aspects of intellectual life.

Perhaps the most complex and interesting contradiction is the one between the dedication of militant republicans such as O’Malley to building their version of the Irish Republic for the people, and their contempt for the will of those same people when they voted for something other than this. It’s an issue that we still haven’t fully resolved as a nation and as we approach the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Rising it is perhaps worth exploring a little deeper.

The rebels of 1916 rejected constitutional politics as practised by John Redmond in favour of the revolutionary approach. This legacy lived on in the rejection of the treaty by those who placed the ideal of the Republic ahead of the will of the people, leading to a bloody and ultimately pointless civil war. It continued through the Northern Troubles and lingers to this day with militant republican groups refusing to recognise the will of the people, delegating authority instead to some version of the IRA army council.

English makes this point:

“The Pearsean Republicanism enthusiastically endorsed by O’Malley (and central to his Revolutionary politics) was founded on a rejection of constitutional nationalist politics as being impotent and irrelevant. Some scholars still seem impressed by this logic. But an alternative view suggests that it is, perhaps, less than compelling and that Republicans’ rejection of constitutional politics was unfortunate. […] John Redmond’s approach reflected an attempt to reject bigotry, and the legacy of such efforts should be valued in the context of a Northern Ireland conflict which has repeatedly been exacerbated by a celebration of narrowness and chauvinism. Militant Republicans exclusive definitions of authentic Irishness, no less than their intimidatory practices, arguably offer unhelpful legacies for modern Ulster.”

It is a point worth considering as we lead in to the 90th anniversary celebrations. As we celebrate the achievements of the 1916 rebels we should also consider the limitations of their approach and ask ourselves have we overcome those limitations as we seek new ways to resolve the conflict on our island. How we commemorate 1916 will tell a lot about how little or how far we have come.

Ernie O’Malley: IRA Intellectual is a fascinating book. The man himself is a fascinating character and Richard English’s critical yet sympathetic evaluation of his life and ideas is equally fascinating.

Just as he did with complex mathematical theories in Fermat’s Last Theorem, in The Code Book Simon Singh brings the equally complex world of cryptography to the general reader with seemingly effortless ease. The book is filled with easy to follow explanations and examples, and interesting anecdotes from the history of cryptography. From Mary Queen of Scots and ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics to the Enigma machines of World War II and the RSA algorithm that we use today, it’s always accessible but never simplistic or patronizing.

Writing in 1999 - when the threat of terrorism did not occupy the minds of the majority to the same extent as it does today - he gives his thought on future attitudes to cryptography:

…nobody can foresee with certainty the shape of cryptographic policy ten years from now. However, I suspect that in the near future the pro-encryption lobby will initially win the argument, mainly because no country will want to have encryption laws that prohibit e-commerce. However, if this policy does turn out to be a mistake, then it will be possible to reverse the laws. If there were to be a series of terrorist atrocities, and law enforcers could show that wire-taps would have prevented them, then governments would rapidly gain sympathy for a policy of key escrow. All users of strong encryption would be forced to deposit their keys with a key-escrow agent, and thereafter anybody who sent an encrypted message with a non-escrowed key would be breaking the law. If the penalty for non-escrow encryption was sufficiently severe, law enforcers could regain control. Later, if governments were to abuse the trust associated with a system of key escrow, the public would call for a return to cryptographic freedom, and the pendulum would swing back. In short, there is no reason why we cannot change our policy to suit the political, economic and social climate. The deciding factor will be whom the public fears the most - criminals or the government.

Leaving aside the cheap shot that it’s sometimes hard to tell the government from the criminals I think we have a long way to go before the general public is informed enough to even understand what’s at stake, never mind swing the pendulum. Singh highlights the necessity of public awareness and knowledge to keep governments in check. The Irish government is tending towards more secrecy and more surveillance; more power and less accountability. Which is why it is so important to support initiatives such as Digital Rights Ireland.