Where did it all start?
International law versus the ‘rules-based international order’ has come into sharp focus in recent times. Looking at the history of the Communist Party of Ireland, it is difficult to know if the concept of the ‘rules-based international order’ originated within the party or whether the party adopted or adapted to its vague provisions.
One way or the other, the comparison makes grim reading. But first, it has to be stated that the CPI Constitution and (until recent years) the standing orders of the branch structures are models of democracy that provided clear provisions for how the operation of the party and of its various structures would be conducted. It is also very clear on how matters of internal differences and discipline should be handled. Most of those provisions are still in place.
Therein lay the problem. Predetermined outcomes and predesigned methodologies simply do not sit well together particularly when the required methodology is not guaranteed to bring about the predetermined outcome.
The degree to which specific provisions have been selectively abused, ignored or otherwise dispensed with entirely is at the heart of the matter and the various and numerous posts on our site explain and expose the levels of avoidance and non-observance by leadership at every level.
We make it clear in these posts that the more recent events we have exposed were not an anomaly, they were simply an extension of existing methodology with a vulgar, reckless trait about them. Sound familiar?
Why does any of this matter? It matters because if an entity is compromised in any way, its effectiveness is compromised. Nobody with an ounce of sense would listen to the leaders of the EU or the US lecturing about democracy, of social justice or human rights. At least, until recently, the EU and the US attempted to justify their ‘rules-based international order’. Even that pretence has now been abandoned.
Contrast that with the CPI. The imposition of its own ‘rules-based order’ has never been justified or explained. No such encumbrance bothers the CPI as can be witnessed by its absolute silence on all the charges laid against it.
It’s all very well applying your own brand of ‘rules-based order’ if you have the power, the backing of the ‘free world’ and the biased media behind you. As we know, the ‘rules-based order’ is no longer about just about silencing allegedly hostile entities, but about controlling and eliminating any possible dissent or questioning of that order.
The same principles and mechanisms have been utilised by the CPI. The main mechanism for such assaults on selected members is to studiously circumvent any of the provisions within the constitution and branch standing orders that provide protection to members and which specified how internal disagreements or disciplinary actions should be approached. Sound familiar?
The lead up to that phase dictates that a softening-up operation is put in place: the individual is ‘disruptive’, is causing ‘problems’ within the branch, etc and the inner circles both overtly and covertly spread the word. Then, it’s only a matter of how, not if, the member or members get the final push.
Instead of members being able to regulate their conduct and foresee consequences under existing regulations with a confidence that allows them to contribute or challenge in a safe environment, they are forcibly and unknowingly exempted from any such comforts.
In effect, targeted members became unlawful combatants who have no way to defend themselves having been stripped of any protections that actually do exist within the democratic structures of the party. They are now at the mercy of executive orders. Sound familiar?
For generations that is how it worked though until recent times it was conducted with more than a hint of sophistication. The process was (almost foolproof) because invariably there was little or no push-back from the targeted members.
However, towards the end of Eugene McCartan’s stewardship when targeted members refused to accept their fate, the system was tested and it started to break down. The limitations of the system were finally exposed. Naturally, the leadership had no concept of such an eventuality, yet another example of its woeful lack of any planning or analysis. Above all, it exposed the lack of leadership skills to manage an unfamiliar scenario.
It was then that the leadership resorted to desperate measures, each measure more desperate than the other, each measure more illegitimate than the other. Finally, all caution and sense were disposed with as the trap they had set for themselves – disarray and panic – slowly and surely closed in around them.
Leadership replaced by thuggery
Little or no thought was given to the consequences largely because any adverse consequences seemed unlikely or, if they arose, could be easily managed. When you operate in a bubble – as the CPI clearly does – the possibility of adverse consequences is measured against the internal workings of the bubble itself without regard to the wider world. So, having got away with such tactics for so long, what could go wrong?
Indeed, what could go wrong? Simply, they overplayed a weak hand once too often and other players finally called their bluff. Instead of retiring from the game, some members decided to play on to see what happened. What happened was not nice, but the game was changed for ever.
When the casualties eventually started to mount up and could no longer be ignored, there was still no postmortem. The casualties were unlawful combatants, so there was no need to upset the general membership with the gory details. As a consequence, most of the membership knew little or nothing about some of the expulsions. With the debasement and avoidance of internal mechanisms, the leadership had dispensed with any requirement to either inform or consult the membership. Those that did know, didn’t want to know. Those who found out later, didn’t want to know either.
Why did the party behave the way it did? Because it could. Just like the EU and the US could and did.
There is still is no consideration by the leadership or by the general membership of how to stop the abuse of power within the party. Instead, the only consideration allowed is about how to manage it. Even the disastrous outcomes from such abuses have not caused a rational, objective reaction. If anything, the historical culture of abuse of power is further entrenched and normalised.
Who gains from all this thuggery? Certainly not the party itself and now not even the narrow minds who perpetrate the abuses have anything to gain from continuing their façade as normal business. It’s just a mess.
What a shame that the ‘inventive’ capabilities of the leadership to maintain control had not been used positively to build an effective, vibrant party instead.
The various strands of leadership know exactly what happened and understand the consequences. However, they are powerless to do anything because they have neither the capacity nor the courage to start a process of rectification.
Their impotence is exposed by the fact that they have not been able to mount a single defence of themselves or the party against very serious charges over the past four years.
The current leadership is compromised beyond redemption.