01.11.2007

Fight for NUS democracy

If the left wants to defeat the NUS bureaucracy in its attempt to abolish the last vestiges of democracy in the student union, our campaign against the attacks must say more than just 'no'. Communist Students member Tina Becker reports

What started as a slightly dull 'conference' of about 35 people, organised by Education Not for Sale on October 21, suddenly sparked up when a small delegation from the Socialist Workers Party came along for the discussion over the proposed attacks on the democracy of the National Union of Students. The NUS leadership has just published an NUS white paper on NUS governance, which proposes dramatic changes to its functioning. In effect, national conference and the national executive committee are to be abolished.

Education Not for Sale, the student organisation set up by the Alliance for Workers' Liberty, had invited most other left groups to discuss a joint campaign against the proposals, but apart from Communist Students and the SWP (aka Student Respect), nobody showed up. Workers Power's youth group, Revolution, was absent and Socialist Students, although it had promised to send a delegation, also did not make it.

On the one hand, it is encouraging to see the AWL and the SWP actually take up a question like this. Hardly any students will know what the NUS does, let alone how it is structured and organised. A campaign to defend the democratic structures that exist within this bureaucratic organisation is unlikely to be met by immediate success in terms of recruiting new members.

However, the way both Student Respect and ENS (to a lesser degree) are planning to fight against the attacks is pretty much in line with their economistic politics. Both organisations propose to run a campaign that focuses almost exclusively on the 'maintenance' and 'defence' of the existing NUS structures.

Although ENS published its - slightly preferable - statement widely on the internet on October 15, asking other student organisations on the left for their input, the SWP preferred to keep its own plans to itself. Three SWP members, led by Rob Owen - who, like the AWL's Sofie Buckland, is a part-time member of the current 'Block of 12' (NUS executive members not elected to a specific post) - surprised everybody at the meeting by announcing that Student Respect had already launched its own statement.

In what probably counts in the SWP as a gesture of goodwill, Rob then handed out leaflets for the official launch of the new campaign it has already decided to establish, which featured comrade Buckland and ENS as co-sponsors. "I left a message on your answer machine," he mumbled, but Sofie protested that she did not know anything about it.

Then ensued a rather unpleasant and predictable squabble over which of the two proto-campaigns would be in the driving seat of the actual one. "We have already registered a website," pleaded Sofie. "But ours has more supporters," countered Rob. AWL member Sacha Ismail tried in vain to convince Rob to launch the campaign "here and now". But Rob would not budge and did not even agree to the "appointment of an interim body that can organise between now and November 4" (the date when the SWP wants to launch its campaign). He finally agreed to some kind of informal chat with Sofie over how the launch meeting would be handled.

Not just 'no'

What both statements have in common is their minimalism. In typical 'new speak', the SWP wants the campaign to be "as broad as possible". In reality, however, the three demands it proposes are not broad, but the opposite - very, very narrow:

l To reject the conclusions of the NUS governance review as a dangerous attack on democracy and student rights.

l To oppose all proposals coming out of the governance review and defend the existing structures.

l To oppose calls for an undemocratic emergency conference.¹ 

According to Rob Owen, there is "an NEC faction" that would not be able to support the campaign if it went beyond these narrow slogans. Unfortunately, he could not tell us which faction that might be, because it is supposed to be still "a secret". Chances are he was referring to Student Broad Left, the organisation controlled by the shadowy sect, Socialist Action (aka Friends of Ken Livingstone). However, on the NUS NEC, SBL member George Woods (and fellow traveller Ruqayyah Collector) failed to oppose the white paper.

In response to the SWP's statement, the AWL comrades quite rightly made a big fuss about the need to go "beyond the current attacks". Daniel Randall eloquently spoke about using this campaign for "some 'blue sky thinking', to put forward our own agenda for education". Others spoke on the need to "include aspirational demands". But sadly the ENS statement does not go much beyond the SWP's. It also calls chiefly for the "maintenance" of the existing structures.

In a paragraph entitled 'Positively, we also want "¦', the comrades list a set of four further demands: a longer national conference; for the NUS NEC to meet every six weeks (instead of three times a year); for the expansion of the Block of 12 (to 15); and "a major cutting back of bureaucratic waste and redirection of resources to campaigning". While the last point is eminently supportable, the other demands could hardly be described as "blue sky thinking".

To be fair, Communist Students had not submitted any amendments to the statement before October 21. Our executive has since met, however, and discussed the kind of strategy we think the campaign should adopt. First and foremost, we need an approach that goes further than simply saying 'no'.

Unless we do so, the campaign is doomed to fail: Even with SBL support, it would still constitute a minority on the NEC. The white paper expresses clearly the wishes of the Labourite factions, who have a majority on the executive and most of the local student unions. To overthrow this bureaucracy and their crass plans, we need to win support from below, from the mass of students. But the narrow campaign proposed by the SWP in order to bring SBL on board is unlikely to inspire anybody. In fact, it is designed to be conducted solely at the level of student union bureaucrats - ie, the very people who have launched the attack in the first place.

Instead of looking to highly unreliable and politically dodgy 'allies' in SBL, we should use this as an opportunity to fight for a bold campaign to expand democracy in the NUS. The current attacks could be a useful springboard for such a broader campaign, which would be far more likely to inspire and mobilise students than mere defence of the existing crusty structures.

One reason why students appear apathetic and uninterested in politics is the highly bureaucratised nature of the NUS. How can we expect students to take seriously the notion of challenging and defeating the government when their own organisation is so remote, unaccountable and is clearly little more than a career ladder for wannabe establishment politicians? So let us start with our own union.

Democracy must extend wider and go deeper. We would argue that the students, staff and all university workers are the people who should democratically run educational institutions, not the vice-chancellors, state bureaucrats or purveyors of pseudo-market imperatives.

Concretely, CS will fight for a campaign that not only opposes the proposed attacks, but additionally demands:

l  Abolition of the direct election of NUS officers at conference. In the current system, they become little Bonapartes who are not really accountable to anybody (the only time they can be removed is at the next annual conference). Instead, the whole executive should be elected by STV at conference (apart from the representatives elected by the liberation campaigns).

l  The NEC should then elect its officers from its own number. They must be accountable to and recallable by the executive - which in turn must be far more accountable to the membership.

l  A unified national election day, when all universities and colleges elect their delegates to national conference and the local union executive. This could help to counter poor turnout, increase student participation in union structures and politics.

l  Salaried officials and anybody employed by the NEC should receive no more than an average skilled worker. Open the books.

l  Full transparency on all matters, especially in all dealings with government ministers and commercial concerns.