Described by a national newspaper in 1915 as the best-known nationalist figure in Ireland, Arthur Griffith and his ideology had clearly achieved, at the very least, widespread recognition in all of Ireland. To explain his ideology we can situate his ideas within a framework of long-term thought patterns and connect them to the short-term contextual impulse that shaped his social and political beliefs. Allowing for a broad “geographical” scope will also benefit our discussion; Griffith, for example, often used the Austro-Hungarian relationship as a model for Irish political life. Discovering where international contexts intersected with Irish ones, together with the recognition of long- and short-term developments, will therefore provide us with the best method of explaining Griffith's ideology. We should recognize that Griffith could be a “chameleonic” political figure and his “ideology” was not necessarily firm, although the fluidity of his ideology may in itself be helpful in explaining how he formulated his thought process. To understand how, and if, recognition of Griffith and his ideology translated into “influence,” then: Contextualize when and if Griffith's political or social ideas were directly implemented or influenced the structure of specific organizations (this , for example, might be found in constitutions or entry requirements) will explain any influence it has had. Likewise, a view that Griffith himself was able to directly influence other people to change their opinions will serve to qualify Griffith's influence. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayA central tenet of Griffith's ideology was passive resistance to British rule. Indeed, Griffith saw parliamentary absenteeism as passive resistance; in a 1902 speech, Griffith had called on parliamentarians to imitate Franz Deak's Hungarian supporters, who refused to take their seats in the Austrian parliament until their demands were met. To understand his alignment with this principle, we must combine the long-term Irish historical context with his experience in South Africa in the late 1890s. While Irish politics had been dominated by the parliamentary action of figures such as Isaac Butt and Charles Stewart Parnell in the late 1800s, there was a competing line of thought which saw Irish involvement in Westminster as undermining the nationalist cause. The Irishman newspaper, as early as 1878, had stated that "a nationalist must necessarily cease to be a nationalist" if he takes the parliamentary oath and sits in his seat. More directly influential on Griffith's thought process, however, was Parnell's shift to the left following his fall in 1891. For Griffith, this was an indicator that revealed the "boss's" true opposition to the MPs; Set against the backdrop of two failed home rule bills, this development began to open up ideas regarding extra-parliamentary tactics to pressure the British. What really exacerbated these Irish historical precedents was the Boer War in South Africa. Although Griffith admired the resilience of the Boers in fighting the British Empire, their eventual failure indicated to him that Irish armed resistance would be an equally futile undertaking. Likewise, having left for South Africa in 1897, the centenary of the failed 1798 rebellion would no doubt have touched on his thought process as the events of the Boer War unfolded; the ideal of armed resistancenot only was it failing in South Africa, it had already failed in Ireland. When combined with his view that MPs were equally ineffective, we have now discovered the reasons for Griffith's promotion of passive resistance through parliamentary absenteeism. The influence of his ideology of passive resistance is a little harder to state, but there are two clear direct results of this: Immediately, Griffith joined with other nationalist groups such as Inghinidhe na hEireann (the Daughters of Ireland) to provide relief to the Boers and, perhaps more importantly, allowed parliamentary absenteeism to begin to be seen as a truly useful tactic. In terms of immediate influence on the Boer War, Griffith and Maud Gonne were instrumental in arranging for medical supplies to be sent to Boers fighting the English, and similarly in establishing funding schemes for Irishmen who wished to go to fight for the Boers in South Africa. . This form of nationalist agitation thus began to publicize the extra-parliamentary tactics associated with Griffith. Over a longer period, and perhaps even more importantly, Griffith's ideals came to have a direct impact on Irish politics. When, for example, in 1905 the Liberal government attempted to bribe the Irish Parliamentary Party with an insufficient Council Bill, MP C. J. Dolan resigned and joined forces with Griffith. While the initial effect of this was somewhat inconsequential, it begins to show how Griffith's ideology was influencing political tactics. What it also shows, however, is that Griffith's influence initially depended on direct political context; just as Dolan joined in response to the Liberals' inadequacy in 1905, when John Redmond won considerable victories in the 1910 general election, Griffith's defense of parliamentary absenteeism was hugely discredited. In particular, the organization through which he publicized his doctrine – by then known as Sinn Fein – declined rapidly, seeing a decline from over ninety branches of the organization in 1909 to an effectively central branch operating in Dublin by 1910. However, historical circumstances ultimately served to cement Griffith's ideology into the Irish political framework; Following the attempt to impose conscription on Ireland in 1917, Griffith convinced Redmond to join forces with Eamon de Valera (now president of Sinn Fein) as a means of opposing the British government. Importantly, the first promise of the 1918 Sinn Fein manifesto was to “withdraw Irish representation from the British Parliament”. In essence, then, just as Griffith's absenteeism ideology was made up of a series of long-term and short-term issues, the influence of the ideology can be read as having similar short-term, and ultimately long-term implications , for Irish politics. Underlying Griffith's ideology was his belief in Irish independence, echoed in the name of the organization he founded, Sinn Fein, literally translated as "We Ourselves". Just as Griffith had called for Irish MPs to form their own legislative body, economic independence from Britain and Irish protectionism were at the heart of his doctrine. Indeed, Griffiths's initial economic policy focused on three levels: boycotting English goods, persuading local councils to favor Irish firms with contracts, and establishing a General Council to protect Irish industry. The formation of this ideology was, once again, precipitated by both long- and short-term Irish and European contextual issues and realities. Griffith considered successHungarian, in part, due to the fact that they had sufficient resources within their own nation to negate dependence on Austria. In Ireland, he firmly believed that there were large untapped coal resources that the country could use to supplement its industry. Likewise there were specific Irish precedents that complemented his economic ideology; events such as the Tithe War of 1831-9 had seen the Irish people refuse to purchase confiscated goods. Griffith identified this, in an article in his newspaper The United Irishman, as a direct response to the call for "trust in yourselves" and was therefore the center of "Sinn Féin politics". Compounded by his observation that Ireland was paying more than its fair share of taxes to Britain, these precedents and problems combined to form the backdrop to Griffith's economic ideology. It served to influence both small-scale economic agitation and , on a larger scale, influenced both the labor movement in Ireland and the politics of Sinn Fein. Locally, Griffith's influence is exemplified in the attempt to counteract the 1907 International Trade Exhibition with a National Irish Trade Exhibition. Not only was this a form of localized agitation, but it was supported by the Archbishop of Dublin, the GAA, and several other nationalist organisations. The exhibition intended not only to showcase Irish industry, but to enable the sale of 10,000 shares of Irish companies to Irish buyers, thus combining a symbolic adulation of Irish industry with a practical focus on cultivating Irish economic development. Although plans for the exhibition were ultimately abandoned, the approval of the plan nevertheless reveals the influence his ideology had. Thus, Griffith's ideology was capable of not only influencing activity on a local level, but had already begun to garner the attention of much more influential figures and organizations. Furthermore, Griffith's politics eventually formed the building blocks of much larger organizations. Notably, in 1913 union leader TR Johnson and an old Sinn Feiner, T. O. Kelly incorporated many of Griffith's demands, such as control of Irish resources and development of industry, into their intended development programme. Griffith's influence is equally clear in Sinn Fein's 1918 election manifesto; it called for an end to the “decay of our industrial life and the increasing financial plunder of our country”, thus linking Griffith's calls to push Ireland into an “agricultural-productive state” and mirroring his criticism of excessive taxation. As such, Griffith's economic ideology was translated from theorization to the physical structure of large organizations, thus exemplifying his influence. We should, however, briefly qualify this influence. The economic ideas of protectionism and industrial development were welcomed, but his use of the Hungarian model was scorned by socialists and a number of labor supporters; James Connolly, founder of the Irish Republican Socialist Party, criticized the Hungarian connection, stating that "Hungarian productive classes are denied the right to vote and the country is in a chronic state of rebellion and unrest". Although some of Griffith's economic ideology managed to gain influence, his economic framework as a whole was not fully accepted. What, however, we can discern from a closer examination of Connolly's criticism is that Griffith had a much broader and more abstract impact on Irish politics. In the same speech Connolly went on to say that the Irish working class would "take to heart the full meaning of the