Comment by Jorge Jorquera
The National Union of Students organised a national day of student action on March 26. Rallies and demonstrations were held in most major cities, with several thousand university and college students participating.
While NUS attempted to restrict the protests to the suggestion of a loans scheme to replace Austudy, students invariably demanded more. In Sydney, rather than chant "Ho, ho, ho, the loans scheme's got to go", as NUS urged, students demanded "free education for all, not just the rich".
This is no surprise, considering the state of tertiary education. With lectures and tutorials totally overcrowded (tutorials of 150 have become common) and tens of thousands of young people denied entry, there is bound to be a lot of anger and frustration. This is the federal government's greatest concern. Students taking to the streets in protest could well serve as an example to others suffering from the recession. With young people bearing a lot of the brunt of the recession, a new rise in the student movement could well be socially explosive.
Hence, two days before the National Day of Action, federal education minister Peter Baldwin backed away from the proposal to replace Austudy with a loans scheme. Considering the relations between the ALP-controlled NUS and the federal government, Baldwin's statement came as no surprise.
One could even be excused for thinking the whole scenario had been staged: NUS organises a national day of action, gives the government a bit of a feel for the level of student anger, and then a deal is struck, with the government backing down on the "reform" of Austudy (for now at least) and NUS agreeing to put the lid on further protests.
ACTU of the student movement
From its formation, NUS has played the role of a muffler on student protests. Over the last few years, it has only moved more to the right. Last year's national conference further confirmed this direction.
Conference delegates were told that NUS did not aim to represent students, but student organisations. This was the argument put by those NUS officials who were against allowing "ordinary" students to attend NUS conferences. These same officials passed a motion that now allows campuses to be affiliated to NUS by their student councils — student referendums, which used to be required, are apparently too cumbersome.
Like the ACTU, NUS functions more as an arm of the government than as a representative organisation. Just about the only connection between ordinary students and NUS is the fee that students from affiliated campuses pay — amounting to tens of thousands of dollars per campus. The bulk of this money goes, not into ut into sustaining the NUS bureaucracy.
NUS should and could be organising numerous activities to build on the existing student anger and make links with other sectors of society suffering from the recession. But don't hold your breath. Like the ACTU, NUS is dominated by pro-ALP careerists who have no intention of organising serious campaigns against the Labor government's attacks on education.
What's more, after the violence that erupted in Melbourne on the National Day of Action, NUS has been given the opportunity for a self-respecting exit.
Ultralefts aid ALP
The results of both the Sydney and Melbourne protests decisively demonstrated how ultraleft groups like the International Socialist Organisation aid the ALP supporters in their efforts to demobilise student opposition to the government's attacks on education.
In Sydney, the rally culminated in a loud and lively protest outside the Austudy offices. After speeches and chanting, the ISO attempted to lead a shove through the police lines. A muffled debate followed, in which many demonstrators opposed this action. Unfortunately, no real democratic discussion was allowed to happen. Finally, after the bulk of the rally had left, the ISO led a march of 50 or so to the state ALP offices. Here they tried to push past the police, while screaming at and abusing any protesters who would not join in.
Similarly in Melbourne, after a 1500-strong march and a spirited occupation of Parliament House steps, the ISO and other ultraleftists attempted to turn the entire focus of the demonstration against the police. The protest ended in total confusion, with hundreds of students leaving.
As in Sydney, the confrontation with the police was begun before any democratic discussion of options could be had — in fact, precisely as the rally was hearing four different motions proposing alternative options for the demonstration.
The result of these minority actions has to been to discourage many student activists from further involvement in the campaign. In Melbourne, for example, the Cross-Campus Education Network meeting that followed the demonstration was smaller than ever, with most of those attending being ISO members and supporters.
'Radicalising' people
Why do the International Socialists think that confrontations with the cops by a relatively small number of "militants" are more effective than peaceful mass protests against the government's attacks on education? They believe that such confrontations radicalise people.
It's true that many students will be angered by savage police attacks on student protests, and some may draw radical conclusions as a result. But deliberate confrontations by small groups, which almost always are smashed and dispersed, only serve to demoralise, frustrate le than they radicalise.
Moreover, they provide the government and the police with a pretext to justify their attacks on democratic rights. The Melbourne action was a perfect case in point. Immediately after the "student street brawl", as it was described by the media, the Victorian police began calling for more powers and the "right" to use riot gear to control public demonstrations. They are also calling for a criminal investigation into the Melbourne student rally.
While it may have been a coincidence, the Melbourne Resistance office was broken into only two days after the March 26 rally. No money was taken, only mailing lists and tapes.
The current demobilisation of the student movement by NUS — made easier by the antics of the ISO — contrasts sharply with the student movement upsurge around the free education campaign of 1987-89. In that period tens of thousands of students were drawn into political activity, and many were radicalised. That campaign, especially in its first year (before the rise of NUS), organised massive demonstrations and forced the government at least to slow its education "reforms".
Protests were built around those demands that drew the largest number of students into action. Occupations of buildings and more radical actions took place, but always after a majority of demonstrators had discussed and supported proposals for such actions. Most rallies included open platforms, where arguments over tactics had to be won, and couldn't just be imposed by a minority.
In that context, groups like the ISO were marginalised. Their antics were mainly a source of humour. It is only in the context of still small campaigns that such groups make any impact, and that's invariably a negative one.