Democratic Socialist Movement (DSM)

For struggle, Solidarity and Socialism in Nigeria

Committee for a Workers' International

Home

Join DSM

Contact DSM

About us

Our Manifesto

Statements

Socialist Democracy

Newspaper of the DSM

Campaigns

NCP

Trade Unions

Students

Women

International

Downloads

email

Socialist Democracy November 2004

By ‘Wale Eleto, Secretary, DSM OAU Chapter

On November 5, 2004, the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife was closed indefinitely after the student protest of November 3 that led to the killing of a student, Rasheed Laketu, part one Architecture, by the armed police invited by the university management at the wake of the protest. Earlier, in the course of the protest the university's vice-chancellor was physically assaulted.

Democratic Socialist Movement DSM OAU chapter in strong term condemn the killing of the student and the invitation of the armed policemen to the campus by the authorities. At the same time we wish to emphatically dissociate ourselves from the counter productive conducts of those who physically assaulted the vice chancellor. This focus-less approach provided the opportunity for the authorities that ordinarily relish tradition of bringing armed police against unarmed protesters at the slightest student protest to hinge the invitation this time on the pretext of the need to rescue the vice-chancellor.

Unfortunately, the killing of the student has been relegated to the background as if it is inconsequential. It appears that the university management does not see anything wrong in the killing of a soul by the police as the vice-chancellor went to pay a thank you visit to the police headquarters for their actions.

For the past few weeks before November 3, the students of the university had been embarking on series of struggles for the reinstatement of the students' union Public Relation Officer, PRO, Peter Olowokandi and Taiwo Hassan, a union activist. The two union leaders were suspended for their leading role in the student protest against the increase/introduction of various forms of obviously illegal fees in August this year. The students also demanded an end to the victimisation of other past student leaders who only enjoy temporal studentship on the basis of court injunction. There was also agitation for the improvement in the living and studying condition on the campus and the release of the examination results of the last semester. The results were withheld due to the dispute between the management and the academic staff union, ASUU over non-payment of the teachers' two-month salaries. The authorities claimed they were complying with the 'no work no pay' policy introduced by government at the wake of the last six-month strike by the lecturers' union, but they actually paid some few lecturers whom they said worked.

The demands of the students stated above are genuine. We in the DSM supported the demands and were active in the struggle to realize them. But the tactics adopted by a section of the students' union leadership and activists, just as we had predicted, has only ended up throwing the struggle backward. Their tactics of the struggle was based on false perspective and political opportunism. On the one hand, the perspective is the one that sees the Vice-chancellor as the singular source of the crises of the university and not the capitalist neo-liberal policies of the government of which, of course, the vice-chancellor is a rabid defender. On the other hand it is a perspective that advocates that the struggle can be fought and won on the basis of the mood, impulse and initiative of a singe active and committed individual in the union.

The current OAU students' union leadership is dominated by politically inactive elements that abandoned their obligatory responsibility leaving one individual as the main link between the students and the union leadership. This abnormal situation left room for a single individual to assume and arrogate to himself alone the sole determinant of defining direction and tactics of the movement, apparently seeing it as opportunity to build his personal profile for the next student elections and was therefore not prepared to entertain any platform for planning and organisation of the struggles. In contrast, the DSM insisted that despite the commendable commitment of this individual, there was a need to harness other structures and human resources of the union to give the struggle an organised outlook. We thus suggested the need for a committee of the students union to be set up for this purpose. Furthermore the DSM argued against false approach in giving the impression that crude anger of the students alone could achieve immediate and absolute victory on the issues at stake, we in the DSM constantly caution against this, bearing in mind the OAU's historic experience on issues like this, that we should have a strategy of, if necessary, a long drawn struggle precisely because the issues causing this repeated victimisation of student activists go beyond the personal idiosyncrasy of one vice-chancellor. We thus suggested that we had to work out a comprehensive line of action including protests and boycotts when necessary, lobbying and appeals when necessary etc.

But a group of student activists disagreed and insisted on the 'one-man-show' approach and the politics of equating the entire problem to that of the 'demonic' vice-chancellor. In deed, unable to withstand the polemics they sadly resorted to cheap blackmail and unwarranted name-calling of DSM members. Hence this set of student activists continuously miseducated the students on the erroneous idea that unless the vice chancellor is picked, forcefully if necessary and arraigned before the students nothing meaningful can be achieved.

The consequence of such false perspective was the assault on the vice-chancellor that provided argument for the police invasion. Yes, the vice chancellor is a rabid stickler to the anti-student, anti-worker policies of Obasanjo government as it reflects in the increase in school fees on two consecutive sessions and the swift implementation of the obnoxious 'no work no pay' policy. Therefore, what is required is an organised and well-coordinated struggle that would have potential of tilting the balance of forces in favour of the students to defeat any particular policy of the university. However, the defeat or otherwise of a policy does not foreclose its reintroduction even on a greater degree irrespective of the person of the vice-chancellor. Thus, a perspective of struggle is correct if it is aimed at exposing the root cause of the crises in education.

It is instructive to note that the similar approach of invasion of the vice-chancellor's office, as canvassed by the same set of student activist, and the subsequent invitation of the mobile police contributed immensely to the loss of the fees struggle early this year on the very first day the major movement started.

Another point of disagreement was what should be our attitude towards the academic union, ASUU. We supported and agitated for the payment of the lecturers. But the leadership of ASUU, though of left extraction, took the solidarity of the students for granted. They did not bother to write or inform the students' union on why the exam results were being withheld, try to gain the understanding and solidarity of the students or even organise a forum to mobilise the political support of the university community. Worse still despite the ceaseless attack on the students, particularly the victimisation of student activists and imposition of obnoxious charges, ASUU never openly condemned these measures or showed their solidarity with students.

We made this critique of ASUU leadership in its presence at a forum organised by the students' union. At this forum we made it clear to ASUU leadership that they should not act in a way that leads students to conclude that it was not concerned with student matters, while expecting that students would automatically mobilise for political support for them when it is the lecturers turn to be in struggle.

But a section of the student leadership and activists advocated blind uncritical support for the ASUU leadership. They said that the DSM's critique of ASUU was "anti-working class". These elements deliberately confuse genuine support for workers in struggle and the spirit of working class solidarity with their allegiance with individuals in ASUU leadership

With the closure of the institution, the struggle is now stalemated. The government may likely set up a panel of enquiry into the crisis. As usual, this would be the opportunity for government to .unleash further attack on the students and witch-hunt the student activists. The vice-chancellor may be absolved by such panel being an obedient servant of the Obasanjo's government and its anti-poor education policy. The management will also seize on the opportunity to further exploit students in the guise of reparation fees for damages done to university properties. It is possible that the students, if they are forced to spend days or months at home, may not be immediately disposed to continue agitation for the outstanding demands, particularly the reinstatement, let alone resist the likely new assault. But such circumstantial political lull among the students cannot last forever. The unresolved pending issues, deplorable welfare conditions, inability of authorities to show anything for the illegal charges collected and the likely new attack to be unleashed on students, in a matter of time will activate students and force them out of their dormant state.

Despite the counterproductive approaches of a section of the student leadership and activists, the DSM maintains that the real issues must not be relegated. The issues remain: opposition to victimisation of student activist and reinstatement of already victimized ones, opposition to the anti-poor policy of education commercialisation and the cancellation of the illegal teaching charges and other such related fees imposed on students in the last two sessions; opposition to the anti-union, anti-working class so-called 'no-work-no-pay' policy and immediate payment of the controversial two month salaries of academic staff in order to facilitate release of students results, and a comprehensive improvement in the studying and living conditions of the campus. Only an approach that seeks to resolve the root causes of the crises can actually guarantee lasting peace in the university. Furthermore we demand the immediate reopening of the university. The continuous closure of university is an unnecessary diversion that cannot in anyway resolve the issues in dispute.

We continue to raise the perspective that beneath the incessant protest and victimisation is the under-funding of education, which is a product of the capitalist neo-liberal policies. The struggle of students on these issues must therefore be waged side by side with the overall struggle against capitalism. Students need both to support the struggles of labour and, on this basis seek labour's support for their own battles. Aiming the struggle at one vice-chancellor is a futile exercise that cannot fundamentally resolve the crisis in the university.

Socialist Democracy November 2004