Unlike the stripping away of democracy in the Labour Party the current proposals for removing the NUS’ own democratic structures will receive far less independent scrutiny. It is this fact and only this fact that enables Organised Independents like Adam and Stephen to defend the indefensible. The most cynical aspect of it is the call for an emergency conference. Only weeks ago leading figures in NUS were denying the possibility as “spin from the hard left” as such a thing would be “undemocratic and unnecessary” – how the tune has changed.

An Extra Ordinary Conference for an Extra Ordinary attack
If the stated aim of holding an emergency conference is to get the governance review through by Conference there are a number of more democratic ways of doing it that were previously on the table. One way of proceeding could be an emergency conference the day before annual conference, which would enable Universities to send their democratically elected delegations. Having an Emergency conference after annual to ratify the decisions made at a properly constituted conference being another. Any honest interpretation of the call for an emergency conference can only reach one of two conclusions: 1) The Organised Independents around Gemma Tumelty want to rush it through in the year they control most of the fulltime positions. 2) An emergency conference offers the chance to get the bulk of the changes passed quickly before delegates have had a chance to get to grips with the proposals - All this in a setting that carves out the vast majority of genuinely independent, liberation and minority delegates.

The logic of the Governance Review
TheGovernance review follows a political (and governance model) far removed from the vision of NUS many hold. The conception of NUS held by the leadership is that of a professional charity along the lines of Amnesty or Liberty rather then a democratic organisation. The distinction is important, with one side seeing democracy as a way of generating ideas, policy and campaigns and the other simply one of ratifying the planning, strategy and tactics of professional officers and staff. The logic of democracy as a top down process of ratification is one that permeates through the proposals and it is this which Stephen does his best to hide. Conference (or congress) would remain a shell of its former self, not to mention the body it was before the previous round of cuts. The space for real policy debate is squeezed into a fraction of the time and the process of students submitting policy (through a series of conferences) is more complex, more biased towards hacks and fulltime officers then before. I didn’t realise that when people said compositing was undemocratic that we had to change it because it wasn’t undemocratic enough! The changes, taken in the round, amount to scrapping of effective accountability in the organisation. From the creation of an unelected “company board,” to the scrapping of the part time officers and the end to a requirement for delegate elections to conference we end up with a completely different type of organisation.

Our Success and our failures
No one is claiming the NUS is perfect, but we have major differences on its potential as an organisation. I still believe that NUS can mobilise students to win real change in our education system and be a part of a wider movement for a better world. The leadership clearly believes that our success over a rogue bank is the maximum we can achieve – defeating government policy like our European sister organisations is clearly out of the question. We now have to put our desire for a free education into a box marked “for private discussions only” to gain a seat around the government policy table as a “reasonable” partner. The success of our attempts (5 challenges for the new government) was astounding – the government didn’t move an inch on a single one. While almost every other campaigning organisation used the period as an attempt to push its demands into the public sphere (from the post workers to Stop the War) NUS was reduced to a non player in the national debate.

Why the left opposes the governance review
We oppose the review not out of narrow self interest but because we believe NUS could build a democratic student movement with the potential to win. We submit motions, stand delegates and stand for positions because we believe it is important that a principled debate is heard at every level of the student movement. If any of the substantive changes pass it would shift the accountability of the NUS from the bottom to the top and enable the leadership to exert near unchallengeable control over the direction of NUS. In the final instance that leadership would be accountable primarily to itself in the form of a part external board. Those going for a compromise position should remember two key facts.

1)The board will maintain a constitutional veto on all matters financial if they relate to the long term health of the NUS.

2)Many previous cuts of democracy and liberation campaigns have been pushed through on the basis of financial necessity.

Below is a point by point response to Stephen Brown, of course without reading the constitution (which will be unavailable until just before we vote on it…)

1. Whether conference is being reduced in size in terms of its potential make up is not the point. Conference is being stripped of most of its democratic power. Much is being pushed sideways to undemocratic Zone Conferences, real strategic debate upwards (National Policy forum style) to a student council and the actual time for debate dramatically cut. Conference would in fact become a glorified campaigns convention with power point presentations from full timers replacing much of the policy debate.

2. A student council is not the same thing as an executive – this is an elementary fact known in every student union. The part time members of the NEC are involved in planning and implementing policy through out the year. Despite the underfunding many members of the block do just that. Removing the NEC and part time proportional representative officers in favour of a student council is a way of reducing a level of accountability on the fulltime officers.

3. Congress will not “appoint” the externals to benignly advice on the finances of NUS. A sub committee of the board will pick the new externals and congress will ratify these decisions with no ability to propose an alternative or question those proposed in person. A process about as democratic as selection to the House of Lords.

4. Cross campus ballots are the only way that the issues for debate at Annual Conference are heard and voted on at a campus level amongst ordinary students. The language of the white paper is openly arguing for the gradual erosion of cross campus elections for NUS.

5. Yearly election of officers was maintained against the opposition of Stephen Brown and Dave Lewis.

6. Restoration of the size of conference would not amount to the swelling of numbers we are lead to believe. The actual size of conference has been gradually reducing in terms of delegates actually at conference. Suggestions that “all those entitled” might suddenly decide to turn up for the first time in 40 years are ludicrous.

7. The block of 12 would not be “maintained” it would be abolished in favour of a powerless group on a student council. Their influence on policy implementation and day to day work of the national union would be destroyed (and an important level of accountability on the full timers with it.)

The Blogs on this site represent the individual views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or practices of the National Union of Students.

All links in blogs will open in a new browser window.

The permanent URL for this specific blog entry is: http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/robowen/274881.aspx