Banning and not banning Sinn Fin and Batasuna

Banning (and not banning) Sinn Féin and Batasuna Dr. Angela Bourne Roskilde University, Denmark Political Studies Association of Ireland, Trinity College Dublin, October 18 -20 2013

TO BAN OR NOT TO BAN? Political wing ETA (Herri Batasuna, Sortu etc) 1978 -2003 - Legal - Political wing IRA (Sinn Féin, Republican Clubs) 1956 -1974 - Illegal (in NI) - 2003 -2012 - Illegal - 1973 Republican Clubs - Legal 1974 Sinn Féin - Legal -

RESEARCH QUESTION Why do parties implicated in similar strategies of violent confrontation with established authorities in the pursuit of anti system goals receive different treatment a) over time and b) in the different states?

THEORY – VIOLENCE AND BANS Existing studies generate the hypothesis that democracies ban anti-system parties that do not unambiguously reject violence State Austria Czech Republic Germany Banned Party National Socialist German Workers Party National Democratic Party Workers Party Socialist Reich Party Communist Party of Germany National Democratic Party of Germany (failed) Ban Year 1945 1988 2010 1952 1956 2003 Greece Italy Israel Latvia Lithuania The Netherlands Russia Communist Party of Greece National Fascist Party Socialist List Kach Balad (failed) Communist Party of Latvia Communist Party of Lithuania Centre Party 1986 Communist Party of the Soviet Union/Russia 1947 1943 1965 1988 2003 1991 1998 1991 Turkey Russian Christian Democratic Party National Bolshevik Party Republican Party of Russia Welfare Party Justice and Development party (failed) Democratic Society Party 2004 2005 2007 1998 2009

THEORY – TOLERANT AND INTOLERANT DEMOCRACY Fox and Nolte (2000) tolerant and intolerant democracies compare constitutional and legal regimes governing proscription and state practice Pedahzur (2004) immunized deal with subversive actions in a more comprehensive and liberal manner militant response employs measures which may undermine democratic standards

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH – INSTITUTIONALIST APPROACH Elite discourse Parliamentary speeches on party bans in Spain, Northern Ireland United Kingdom Party competititon which parties are in power and what are their views on proscription Institutional veto players which actors are involved in decisions on proscription and which have final say.

RESPONSES TO ‘PROSCRIPTION DILEMMA’ FAVOUR ILLEGALIZATION Discourse of intolerance ban a response to problem of law and order party and paramilitaries one and the same banned party deemed ‘abnormal’ and not worthy of normal party rights ban will contribute to end of violence FAVOUR LEGALIZATON Discourse of tolerance emphasise role of parties for realisation of free speech and association rights opt to sanction individuals for illegal acts proscription inimical to conflict resolution

PARTY BANS AND DISCOURSES OF TOLERANCE AND INTOLERANCE Herri Batasuna, Sortu etc Sinn Féin, Republican Clubs 1978 -2003 -LEGAL – DISCOURSE: intolerance 1956 -1974 - ILLEGAL (in NI) – DISCOURSE: intolerance 2003 -2012 -ILLEGAL – DISCOURSE: intolerance 1973 Republican Clubs - LEGAL 1974 Sinn Féin -LEGAL – DISCOURSE: tolerance

PARTY BANS, TOLERANCE AND VETO PLAYERS Herri Batasuna, Sortu etc Sinn Féin, Republican Clubs 1978 -2003 1956 -1974 - ILLEGAL (in NI) DISCOURSE: intolerance - LEGAL DISCOURSE: intolerance VETO PLAYERS: judiciary reject proscription 2003 -2012 - ILLEGAL– DISCOURSE: intolerance VETO PLAYERS: Judiciary accept proscription 1973 Republican Clubs - LEGAL 1974 Sinn Féin -LEGAL – DISCOURSE: tolerance