Brendan Behan, Rhodri Glyn Thomas and Realpolitik (Part 1)

Part One of a translation of an article by Professor Richard Wyn Jones in the current edition of Barn:

Recently readers of Golwg got to read a powerful letter by the Assembly Member for Arfon, and Deputy Leader of the Plaid Cymru group in Cardiff Bay, Alun Ffred Jones. The message of the letter was a warning to Welsh nationalists among them. It referred to the satirical remark by Brendan Behan concerning the historical tendency of Irish republican movements towards schisms and internal wranglings. After accepting the notes and apologies, the third item on the agenda of any republican meeting, said Behan, was ‘The Split’.Beware of the temptation to fall into the trap of such a mindset was Alun Ffred Jones’s message to his readers. It is a key moment in the history both of Plaid Cymru and Wales. Patience, understanding and discipline are needed if the Party is to take advantage of the great opportunities that could come its way.

This isn’t the first time that a prominent member of the Party has used the Golwg columns to preach the avangel of unity and discipline. That was exactly the message of Adam Price a few months before. The preoccupation that is at the root of such declarations is perfectly understandable and rational. Paradox or not, time and again that the crucial moment in the history of a political party, that moment when when it takes power for the first time, is also one of the most dangerous moments as well. That is true whether that party takes power in a sovereign state or becomes the junior partner in a coalition government that controls a legislature of lesser powers.

It’s obvious why, of course. Government offers a wholly new and unique challenge. The experience gained and the skills nurtured whilst part of the opposition do not prepare a party for government. Before giving it a go there is no way to know which politicians will be able to compel the intractable civil service to obey them, who will be able to turn the desires of a manifesto into concrete policies, and who will be able to keep the press, the various movements and the public all happy at the same time. You can’t go to college to learn these things. Neither private companies, public institutions nor councils, even, are a comprehensive preparation either. Indeed, the different discussions of the first years of the Blair government confirm that it took two years for the new ministers to really get their feet under the table. And Labour sat on the opposition benches in Westminster for ‘only’ 18 years. Plaid Cymru spent 82 years without getting a hold on the reins! When nominating members of his party to be Ministers last summer, Ieuan Wyn Jones had no way of knowing who (including himself) would possess the necessary qualifications to make a success of it.

Disappointment is inevitable as well. Yes, being a party of the opposition can be infernally frustrating – read the story of Dafydd Wigley and Dafydd Elis-Thomas during the 1980s if you want confirmation of that. But it has its consolations as well. You don’t have to take responsibility; you can blame everything on the government of the day. It’s a very different matter when you’re a part of that government, of course. As an opposition party you can avoid the priorities, the less-than-ideal decisions and the admitions that are an inevitable part of government in a complex, contemporary society. Not so when in government, and that is when new light is thrown on the weave of different interests and priorities – some of them incompatable enough – which are part of the make-up of any political party. When that happens, especially for the first time, the shock, and the disappointment, can lead to disillusionment and divisions.

Bearing this in mind the warnings of Alun Ffred Jones and Adam Price are timely and wholly appropriate. But it works both ways. Yes, it’s important that the leadership of the Party can expect a bit of understanding and loyalty as they take on the great adventure of governing. This isn’t the time for wallowing in self-indulgent, meaningless and fruitless gestures. On the other hand, it is important that the leadership realises it is all-important to use thelong-sought power to ensure concrete gains in fields that are of special importance for its core supporters. It isn’t enough to want unity and loyalty, these have to be nurtured as well.

Personally, I’m very doubtful of those analyses suggesting that there is a split or a substantial division within Plaid Cymru between the cultural traditionalists on the one hand, and the left wing modernists on the other: or between cultural nationalists and political nationalists, to use the familiar short-hand. The truth is that self-government is an all-important priority for the traditionalists whilst the modernists time after time (through their educational choices for their own children, through their efforts to open and maintain Welsh medium schools etc) have demonstrated their practical commitment to the culture of the Welsh language. For decades now the inhabitants of Gwynedd have been accustomed to seeing Plaid Cymru’s electoral signs declaring Dros Waith a Dros Iaith (‘For Work and For Language’). By adding ‘For Self-government’ at the list we have a fairly good crystalisation of the ideological trinity which is central to the credo of most Welsh nationalists: Social Economic Development; Cultural Restoration and Constitutional Autonomy.

But however we choose to weigh and measure the different things that count for Plaid Cymru’s core support, it is obvious that cultural restoration is a priority of central importance to many of them. On top of which, with many of that core support sensing from their own daily experiences in what were usually considered to be Welsh speaking communities that the language is still receding whatever theofficial rhetoric, they expect the present coalition government to get to grips with the Welsh language’s situation as a matter of urgency and a priority. Because of this, without substantial and viable advances on the matter of cultural restoration, the leadership will be pissing in the wind when it calls for unity and loyalty. And the leadership’s problem is this: of the three big promises made to Plaid Cymru supporters on the matter of the language, only one of them was in Plaid Cymru’s possession – and that was the daily newspaper. There are many reasons to be dissappointed with Rhodri Glyn Thomas’s decision to turn his back on a manifesto commitment – and a coalition agreement commitment – for a daily newspaper. It was best exposed, perhaps, by Heini Gruffudd in an inflammatory article in the May edition of this magazine: an article which no prominent Pleidiwr dared to respond to. But there is another reason why that leadership will regret being so ready to agree with Rhodri Glyn’s decision on the matter of a daily paper, and that is a purely realpolitik reason. A daily paper would have offered them a defence in the face of the dissappointment that is sure to come from the direction of the two other big commitments on the language.

Continued in Part 2