[unclear: t] does not matter much if a person [unclear: uces] stereo-typed Party writings only [unclear: limself] to read. If he passes them on to [unclear: one] else, the number of readers is [unclear: led], and already no small harm is [unclear: to] If he has them posted up, [unclear: eographed], printed in newspapers or [unclear: ished] in book form, then the problem [unclear: mes] indeed a big one, for they can [unclear: lence] many people. And those who [unclear: luce] stereotyped Party writings always large audiences. Thus it has become [unclear: alive] to expose and destroy it." (Mao [unclear: Tang]Oppose Stereotyped Party[unclear: lings.])

[unclear: iere] is a standardized mental picture of role and function of the Student [unclear: resentative] Council held by many [unclear: rades] who write for Salient. This [unclear: typed] view of SRC must be rooted and subjected to rigorous criticism; for [unclear: ly] if to be a Marxist is anything, it is to [unclear: ntktogmatic].

[unclear: or] instance writing in Salient No. 4 this Lisa Sacksen claimed inaccurately that [unclear: e] power of SRC has been carefully [unclear: anded] over the years so that now the [unclear: cutive] is little more than an [unclear: inistrative] sub-committee."

[unclear: ikewise] Andrew Beach, writing in [unclear: mt] No. 13, sees this institution as the [unclear: mocratic] policy making body of the [unclear: lents] Association," whilst Simon Terry Salient No. 17) goes as far as claiming "SRC is much more than just a policy [unclear: ng] body for the association...To me, it [unclear: ve] all an opportunity for an exchange [unclear: iews] on all matters and is as much a part of our education as the lectures we feel so compelled to attend."

Investigation is Essential

The problem then arises: How can we establish the validity, if they have any, of these claims? It is all very well to go on and on in the abstract about this so-called democratic organ, the SRC, but what about the concrete situation? How does the "critical contemplation" upon the nature of SRC by such comrades compare with the events transpiring at these meetings? The only way to solve this problem is to investigate the actual situation.

Objectively SRC has no credibility with either it's supporters or opponents. The "supporters" of SRC never take anything to that body if it can be more conveniently dealt with elsewhere. It is of course the Executive which really runs the Association and takes all the important decisions which are not reserved by the Constitution to General Meetings. SRC is used to ratify decisions that the 'establishment' want ratified.

Nowhere was this more appaarent than in the recent debacle at SRC concerning the Massof presidency, when this was foisted on students. Not content with the defeat of their motion in the first five minutes the Executive and their supporters dragged out that SRC, on an already defeated motion, for 1½ hours and then bogged down next week's SRC with the same issue for at least an hour! No wonder there's little participation by students at SRC; most of those who do attend soon leave thanks to the filbustering tactics of a few.

Another recent issue, and one that very few students will even be aware of, is the case of the so-called "unauthorised people making statements to the media on [unclear: behalt] of the Students' Association" (see Executive minutes, 31 July, p. 4). This is surely a highly contentious issue, especially at the present time when the media image of students is particularly important, and one that should be Openly debated in the Association, presumably at an SRC. But oh no; it's dealt with by our non-political "administrative sub-committee", the Executive, in their characteristic star- chamber fashion.

Then there is the matter of the University Challenge television series. The question of whether or not to boycott University Challenge because of the current state of education in New Zealand and an issue vigorously debated recently at 2 other universities, Auckland and Canterbury. We didn't hear about this at SRC either Our Executive conveniently filed that one away in their administrative cabinet.

Comrades Sacksen and Co. would be well advised to investigate before they speak. For as the Great Helmsman put it: "How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?"

The Dilemma of "Participatory Democracy"

SRC is operated on the basis of "participatory democracy." This is an ill defined concept but it seems to imply that under such a system everyone would participate in all decision making. In theory this sounds all very well but in practice it leads to leftist self-isolation and blocism, for the decisions are taken by whoever cares to come along to meetings and make them. The end result is the substitution of factions who operate in the name of the membership as a whole.

It is often argued by supporters of the SRC system that it allows for informed rational debate. But again the fault with this argument is that a "participatory democracy" system stifles rather than encourages debate. This is because policies are set and action determined by those who, in the maelstrom of discussion, impress most by what they seem to be saying, rather than by what they actually do say. This has been most obvious at recent meetings where certain members have appointed themselves "constitutional experts" and bludgeoned others into silence by emotionally playing upon most students general ingnorance of the VUWSA constitution.

Another inherent problem in the SRC system is that forceful individuals can dominate meetings to their own advantage. This is not my criticism but that of a former SRC Co-ordinator, Jonathon Scott, who writes in his introduction to the 1979 SRC policy booklet: "...the role of SRC Coordinator has undergone a significant change in recent times. This state of affairs is wholly attributable to one event. In 1978 'Person X' began university. It is likely that rumours to the effect that since his arrival the SRC minutes have had to be stored in the Union basement because there is no other room large enough are slight exaggeration. Nevertheless I am acutely aware of the fact that I am the first SRC Co-ordinator that has ever had to face the annual task of summarising policy and in the process summarizing 'Person X'.

One need only consider the dozen or so names that appear and re-appear, with tiresome regularity in SRC minutes, as movers, seconders of, and speakers to, motions to realise that SRC is being used as a vehicle by a minority of students for the expression of their own sectarian political platforms. Lenin astutely diagnosed such situations in his accurate and trenchant pamphlet Left-wing Communism, and infantile disorder.

Similarly Lenin, in his leaflet Left-wing Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality drives right to the roots of this problem: "It is because you devote more effort to learning by heart and committing to memory revolutionary slogans than to thinking them out." That's what has happened to our own stereotyped Party writers who go on and on about the so-called 'democratic' institution SRC. But democracy' and freedom of oppression for whom? Themselves or for all students?

The Constitutional Position

The Constitution of VUWSA makes it quite clear that it is the Executive which really runs the Association. Schedule No. 4 Paragraph 4(a) of the Constitution, which deals with the powers of SRC, shows just how weak that body really is; for "the Council shall have no power to commit the Association to financial expense or make direction on financial matters." How can SRC be the controlling body of the Association, as Simon Terry and others claim, when it has no control over the purse strings? It is of course the Executive that makes decisions on financial matters, and hence it is that body that really controls the Association.

Those who support SRC have also argued that reforms such as binding referenda 'would stifle debate' (PSA leaflet, SGM Reforms: The Facts). But this is not so, for informed and completely open debate is guaranteed in the Association not by the existence of SRC but by Schedule 5 which defines another body 'Forum', as "an institution of free spoken expression within the university."

SRC in fact does not allow for "the right to informed debate" because speaking rights and the content of speeches there can be, and often are, ruthlessly controlled by a variety of procedural motions. Such control over what can and cannot be said is not possible at 'Forum' because as Schedule 5. Paragraph 2(b) makes quite clear; "The content of any speech at any meeting of Forum shall not be restricted."

Conclusion

Those who have written in support of SRC as a powerful, democratic body have not really investigated the problem. According to the Great Teacher they therefore have no right to speak: "Unless you have investigated a problem you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtably be nonsense." (Mao, Oppose Book Worship)

Correct study and application of Marxism — Leninism — Mao-Tse-Tung thought to the problem of SRC has revealed that indeed some comrades have written nonsense about this institution.

"It won't do!

It won't do!

You must investigate!

You must not talk nonsense!"

Mao, Oppose Book Worship

Robin C. Craw