Should NUS be political? A response to Bristol & co.

Posted on December 15, 2006
Filed Under Sofie's Blog

This is my response to the letter from some sabbatical officers, circulated to the NEC in October. The text of the letter and signatories can be found here.

Dear Ben (and all who signed the letter)

Thanks for your letter concerning the NEC’s discussion of the Middle East, and particularly the recent war in Lebanon. I must admit from the outset I’m not going to agree with you, or agree to, as you put it, “stop submitting and discussing motions relating to issues on which there is no student consensus”. As part of a socialist minority that wants to see a radically different NUS, I’d find it very difficult indeed to only motions that already have majority support in the student movement, and I’d be failing on my manifesto commitments. You say “we voted on the platforms and manifestos on which you ran, not your opinions on the Middle East”. I explicitly ran as a revolutionary, a socialist feminist. My opinions on the Middle East were reasonably clear; the fact I’d be arguing for NUS to take up questions of international solidarity with workers and students, against war and for democratic rights was very clear. Perhaps your letter is directed more towards those who didn’t run on explicit political platforms, something I’d certainly like to see more of at NUS conference.

Your letter makes some good points; for example, when you mention how good policy passed is forgotten about whilst controversial policy causes a storm. The way NEC meetings are publicised to members is massively flawed and undemocratic; motions aren’t circulated online, only very limited minutes are published and the results of motions debates rarely seen any where but the odd student messageboard and ENS blogs. I’d like to see that changed, but it’s not a result of controversial discussions that less divisive motions are forgotten about; it’s a result of the generally poor level of accountability in NUS and the semi-secretive way NEC meetings are organised.

I also agree that Students’ Unions should focus primarily on issues that affect students (though no doubt there is a debate to be had about what these are, with many SUs focusing on service provision not active, grassroots campaigning), but not to the exclusion of wider issues. We should fight on things which unite us; you mention housing, education, welfare, equality etc. However, none of these things are as uncontroversial as they may first appear. There are sharp political debates to be had about tactics in every fight we take on; were we only to discuss issues which “no one agrees on”, none of these topics could be touched upon, except in the most apolitical and broad of terms.

You also mention the anti-apartheid movement, a particularly good example of NUS taking a stance on a broader international issue; even within this struggle, which had clear support from all in the student movement, there were political divides between those who favoured direct links between the labour movement and students in Britain and their counterparts in South Africa, and those who thought all political links should go through the ANC leadership. Should NUS have refused to take a position because it was potentially controversial? I doubt very much there was a discernable student consensus on these tactics, and if such levels of agreement could be measured why bother with an NEC at all?

The idea that it’s obvious what everyone agrees on is simply ahistorical; large chunks of what we now consider consensual, almost universal opinion within the student movement were once minority concerns which had to be fought for. From abortion rights to anti-racist work, and LGBT liberation to equal pay, minorities within the student movement have won the majority opinion through struggle. In many ways, there is now a backlash against these things with the student movement and society as a whole; complacency about things that “unite us” is dangerous.

Finally, on your conclusion that discussing issues that divide us “achieves nothing”, let me spell out a scenario for you. Had the NEC taken a strong anti-war position from the outset of the fighting in Lebanon, it would have added another voice to the campaign of protest at Israel’s attacks. We also had the potential to mobilise our 5.3 million members against the war; the reasons we didn’t start with our weak policy on the war, but run much deeper, to the fact NUS is not currently capable of organising large numbers of students from the grassroots up, due to years of apolitical leadership and inaction.

Education Not for Sale want to see the kind of national union that welcomes democratic debate on any issue, controversial or consensual, international or domestic. We don’t want, as the right-wing often accuse us of wanting, the NEC to play at being the United Nations. It’s understandable how, in the absence of action, passing policy on global issues comes across as having ideas above our station. Instead, NUS should use its potentially considerable strength to make solidarity with struggles for democratic rights all over the world; it’s the inaction, not the policy, which is the problem.

In solidarity,
Sofie Buckland
NUS NEC