Political wings of armed organizations?

[The Douche]

How do these organizations exist? For instance, the IRSP is the political wing of the INLA. So if the government considers the INLA a terrorist organization, and the IRSP has an open relationship to them as their political party, how are the activists of the IRSP not automatically jailed or whatever? Same with IRA/Sinn Fein, right? Doesn't the ETA also have a political wing?

[Ravachol]

How do these organizations exist? For instance, the IRSP is the political wing of the INLA. So if the government considers the INLA a terrorist organization, and the IRSP has an open relationship to them as their political party, how are the activists of the IRSP not automatically jailed or whatever? Same with IRA/Sinn Fein, right? Doesn't the ETA also have a political wing?

ETA doesn't have a 'political wing' per se but there's a whole movement of groups and parties orbiting around it called the Basque National Liberation Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_National_Liberation_Movement), the most prominent being Batasuna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batasuna).

Most political organisations affiliated to armed organisations are outlawed. However, for this to happen links have to be proven legally. Most political wings don't claim to be part of the same organisation containing the armed wing, they simply release statements 'passed on to them, anonymously' when acting as a mouthpiece. Some political wings are considered terrorist organisations, but not outlawed per se, such as the RIRA's political wing, the '32 county sovereignty movement'.

Usually, the political wing claims to be 'part of the same movement', in the broad sense, but not to have any organisational ties. Until proven otherwise, this kind of shields them from being proscribed. Another motivation is on part of the state, since proscribing all organisations drives all armed activity underground immediately. Allowing links between 'above-ground' organisations and underground groups to exist, enables intelligence services to monitor them more effectively and potentially discover links or information otherwise lost to clandestinity and it's paranoid security culture.

Groups which do not do this, such as the Naxalite Communist Party of India (Maoist) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India_(Maoist)), where military and political structures are openly proclaimed to be one and the same thing. There political command structures control armed structures (which, from a political point of view, has the upside it doesn't allow for the incrowd specialism and state-within-a-state mechanics of seperated political/military structures) and as such the entity is usually proscribed alltogether.

[Sasha]

as long as there is no peace process all "legal" wings in general dont last long, in fact you dont even have to be the "offical" political wing, just shared aims is enough to get you banned.
case in point all the basque and kurdish (left) nationalist parties and youth organisations.
on the other hand, as long as you have a substantial support ammong the population banning parties is mostly symbolic as its supporters wont suddenly start voting for mainstream parties but just will wait for the next incarnation of the banned party.
also in most "democracys" one has to proof that the party is actually a intransical part of the armed organisation which if they are smart make very hard.
often its the convicted former members of the armed wing who finished their jail time who become active in the political wing, hence why in lots of these cases the state starts to make removal of active and passive electoral rights part of the sentencing

[Sasha]

Groups which do not do this, such as the Naxalite Communist Party of India (Maoist) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India_%28Maoist%29), where military and political structures are openly proclaimed to be one and the same thing. There political command structures control armed structures (which, from a political point of view, has the upside it doesn't allow for the incrowd specialism and state-within-a-state mechanics of seperated political/military structures) and as such the entity is usually proscribed alltogether.

i believe ths is also the case with DHKC/P

[Crux]

In the case of FARC the political wing, the Partido Communista Clandestino de Columbia has the structure of any other communist party although, given that they are illegal, their above ground activities are what could be called of a deep-entryism kind.

[DDR]

As for the ETA case, which is the one I better known, Batasuna is the political wing, they were ilegalliced, a lot of them are in jail. In 2002 the spanish judges made Parties Law, a law who sais to ilegallice all the politcal parties which doesn't condemn violence (nor the violence of the GAL (PSOE), nor the Franquism (PP), only the violence of ETA) and in the same year Baltasar Grazon illegaliced Batasuna (yes the same Garzon of which I have seen here avatars and stuff like that to support him, to all of you: fuck garzon and by association you too!)

And then it began the dance of names, after Batasuna came lots of parties which tried to get the voices of more than a third of basques of suddenly have no political representation in any way. Until last year the IA wasn't able to get in to any elections, and after almost 10 years they become the second political party in EH, having the mayority of townhalls and probably theyare going to get pretty close to the lehendakaritza (Vasque Presidency) next year when the elections take place.

[The Douche]

So what, specifically enables the INLA and IRSP to both exist in the relationship that they have? Or is my understanding of their relationship incorrect?

[Susurrus]

No offense, but why on earth is this in chit-chat?

[Prometeo liberado]

In the context of the IRA/SINN FEIN and IRSP/INLA the relations are only implied, though very real, and are mostly allowed to remain legal as an avenue for communication and observation. This serves a dual purpose. One, to disseminate information to those outside the immediate conflict. Two, as an easily accessible observation point for the authorities to look for leadership or programme changes. As for an open, visable relationship? That's where you enter into the illegal/legal realm. Nor have I ever seen the IRA and Sinn Fein hold a joint news conference. Most often these parties only "speak for" the guerrilla armies. A very thin veneer.

[Ravachol]

In the context of the IRA/SINN FEIN and IRSP/INLA the relations are only implied, though very real, and are mostly allowed to remain legal as an avenue for communication and observation. This serves a dual purpose. One, to disseminate information to those outside the immediate conflict. Two, as an easily accessible observation point for the authorities to look for leadership or programme changes. As for an open, visable relationship? That's where you enter into the illegal/legal realm. Nor have I ever seen the IRA and Sinn Fein hold a joint news conference. Most often these parties only "speak for" the guerrilla armies. A very thin veneer.

Well it's no "joint conference" but Sinn Fein members openly attend (P)IRA funerals, speaking their condolences.

osk3RYWKUIQ

The IRSP does the same with fallen INLA members:

JuI5Ax4UdV0

And the Real IRA seems to hold open announcements, no doubt with 32CSM members present:

T7ubupTqn8s

[Sasha]

In the context of the IRA/SINN FEIN and IRSP/INLA the relations are only implied, though very real, and are mostly allowed to remain legal as an avenue for communication and observation. This serves a dual purpose. One, to disseminate information to those outside the immediate conflict. Two, as an easily accessible observation point for the authorities to look for leadership or programme changes. As for an open, visable relationship? That's where you enter into the illegal/legal realm. Nor have I ever seen the IRA and Sinn Fein hold a joint news conference. Most often these parties only "speak for" the guerrilla armies. A very thin veneer.

wasn't it illegal for the BBC to broadcast gerry Adams and other ira/sinnfein spokespeople so they always dubbed him by some voice actor?

[Prometeo liberado]

wasn't it illegal for the BBC to broadcast gerry Adams and other ira/sinnfein spokespeople so they always dubbed him by some voice actor?

Yes. Until the relatively recently past that stuff was illegal. At least the voices had to be dubbed over if that makes any sense. In order to show the world that the armed movement is in fact masked "terrorism" their legal political counterparts must be allowed to function openly. But as I said earlier in this thread the veneer is very thin.