07.12.2006

Low-key rally

Dave Isaacson reports from the so-called 'conference' of Student Respect, which attracted no more than 80 people - a reflection of the state of the organisation nationally

On Sunday December 3 Student Respect held its conference at the School of Oriental and African Studies in central London. As we anticipated, this 'conference' was little more than an extended rally. We reported last week that the organisers were not going to allow any motions to be discussed. On the agenda were two plenary rallies and two sets of four workshops - although 'delegates' did elect a new national steering committee.

However, as it has been made clear that Student Respect is to have no real autonomy when it comes to deciding its own political positions or organisational strategy, it is debatable as to what point there is in this 'leadership' body. In reality its job will be to transmit the Socialist Workers Party/Respect line down into Student Respect campus branches, and try to activate the wider membership to put this into practice. As such it was rather ironic that the chair, Claire Solomon (SWP and SOAS student union co-president), opened the proceedings by stating: "The whole idea is that we decide for ourselves."

The Respect Members Bulletin (December 5) and Socialist Worker (December 9) both reported that "over 100 delegates" attended the conference. Our counts during the main rallies suggest that the figure was closer to 60-70. However, we are not interested in squabbling over such small numbers - even if we accept the higher figure, it is clear that this was not a large gathering. It is also worth noting that, while those present were described as "delegates", there were no local selections to decide who should come. Quite rightly, considering the real size of the organisation, any member or supporter was allowed to attend. As such we can get a reasonable estimate at the size of Student Respect's activist core. If anyone had taken seriously George Galloway's claim at the October annual conference that Respect had recruited 10,000 students, then they would have been bitterly disappointed with this turnout.

The first session of the day was a rally on 'Britain after Blair', addressed by one of Respect's Tower Hamlets councillors, Rania Khan, and SWP and Respect leader John Rees. Rania Khan spoke first and was fairly impressive - epitomising the young, radicalised, female muslims who have throw themselves into political activity these past few years. She is one of the youngest councillors in the country, having only finished university last year. She had the virtue of making it  clear that, as well as supporting the right of women to wear the niqab, it was important to defend their right not to wear "a piece of clothing".

John Rees, on the other hand, gave an almost identical speech to the one he made at the Respect conference on islamophobia, completely failing to state that women should also be able to choose not to wear the niqab, while also insisting that the clothing was not intended as a sign of separation.

Both speakers attacked New Labour's record in government - its wars, privatisations, islamophobia and lies. Khan said that she had respect for rebel Labour MPs, but "they don't have a hope". It was not clear, however, that Respect really was providing a genuine alternative to the politics of Labourism. Other than a speaker who opposed the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Ben Lewis of Communist Students and the CPGB was the only speaker from the floor to make any contentious points.

He agreed with the previous speaker (Ian from SOAS) who stated that we need to "shake off the shackles of the capitalist system", but pointed out that Respect's programme is not anti-capitalist - it certainly does not uphold the principles of working class socialism. Respect needs a Marxist programme if it is to be able to act as a vehicle for human liberation. Comrade Lewis also pointed to the glaring lack of democracy at the gathering, where no motions were allowed: "Even at the rightwing Labour Students conference each branch is allowed to propose one motion," he noted.

In response to Ben's comments Rania Khan said that the call for motions was "a very good point". However, John Rees, the one who really pulls the strings when it comes to matters like this, was pointedly silent on the question. Perhaps he did not hear what comrade Lewis had said, though we think it somewhat more likely that he is dead against Student Respect discussing politics and exercising control over its own affairs, yet felt he might make himself appear rather ridiculous if he actually said so.

Rees did, however, attempt to refute comrade Ben's claim that Respect's programme is not anti-capitalist. "Of course it is," he snorted, quoting the first point in Respect's election manifesto: "How can we not be anti-capitalist when we are for common ownership?" But the claim of anti-capitalism was in any case a smokescreen to disguise the real point: Respect has explicitly rejected socialism as being the rule of the working class.

All in all, the conference was rather subdued - it lacked the revivalist feel of some SWP/Respect events. Throughout the day quite a few comrades commented that the Student Respect group at their university was not going that well - people did not come to meetings and when they did they were not interested in becoming actively involved. Of course, these are problems that all left groups on campuses suffer from in this period. But it does go to show that dumbing down your politics does not overcome this problem.

The one area where Student Respect does seem to be having more success than, say, the Socialist Worker Student Societies is in getting comrades elected in their student unions. However, the type of platform they stand on and what they do when elected are not considered of any real importance. From what was said in the 'Building fighting student unions' workshop, though, it sounds like Respect members are standing on all sorts of platforms with all sorts of alliance partners. At the universities where Respect does have sabbatical officers it seems that they generally behave as well-meaning bureaucrats rather than attempt to win students to a real fighting programme.

While the workshops allowed more students to at least say something - instead of listening to the wise words of comrades Rees and George Galloway from the top table - they are a wholly inadequate forum for conference discussions. By splitting up those attending and forcing them to choose between broad topics without structure, no real debate (let alone decisions) can be had.

Of course, actually exploring the issues is not what the workshops were intended for. Comrade Lewis, arriving at the event on time, accidentally walked in on a pre-conference briefing session for the workshop and rally chairs. SWP student organiser and all-round fixer, Colin Smith, was instructing them to make sure that contributors to the discussions did not make "abstract theoretical points", but ones geared "towards political action".