page 9

How Radical is a Rat?

by George Fyson

Two shining examples of how not to run election campaigns recently were the Labour Party efforts in the British and New Zealand General Elections. The 'statesman' Norman Kirk hired a red sports car during his election campaign on the advice of his advertising agency, and mini-skirted dancers and space rockets ("Into the seventies!!!") featured strongly on his TV publicity. You can imagine the dusty old bureaucrats who head the Labour ranks wheezing in pleasure as they watched: "That will really grab the youth!" Harold Wilson managed to outdo his Kiwi comrades, I feel. His P.R. boys came up with slogans and buttons saying "Labour's got Soul", and "I'm the life and Soul of the Party", and more.

Apart from the yawns this provokes from voters, especially from young people, you would have thought that the dismal failure of the two parties would have taught radicals one thing: left-wing policies (however watered-down) cannot be concealed behind a screen of gimmickry.

But some people are congenitally incapable of learning the lessons of history, and we can faithfully predict the solution the Wilsons and the Kirks will be offering at the next elections: 'better' publicity, and new clever tricks.

You also might have thought that this sort of opportunism was the preserve of establishment politics, but the 'Rat' team for the Students elections have certainly managed to compete.

The Radical Activists Ticket was launched at a meeting of about 50 people on campus a few weeks ago. First of all a programme was voted on, then candidates were chosen. Although a minority had differing ideas it was accepted that the campaign would above all raise ideas and principles in the form of policies relevant to students, and that if elected on this basis it would be excellent. The campaign was to be a serious propaganda campaign; both those who wanted a 'crazy' campaign of impossible demands (to ensure non election and maintain 'purity'), and those who wanted to "pretend we're not really radical so we can get elected and Then . . ." were in a tiny minority.

The platform accepted centred round these principles: the campaign literature and speeches would be used to amplify and explain the programme, which was a little loo general. Special meetings would be held if necessary, and the programme was to be complemented with an overall socialist view of the problems of society and the perspective for change, linked with the programmatic demands.

These demands were:

The withdrawal of all U.S., N.Z. and allied troops from Indo-China, and the use of University facilities towards this end, following the example of the 'anti-war universities' in the U.S.A.

Women's Liberation, and especially educational incentives for women at all levels of the system, free and legal abortions (the Student Health Service could become a model), equal pay for women now, free 24-hour child care facilities for students, staff and campus workers; and the use of campus facilities to advance women's struggles such as the equal pay campaign.

The severance of all sporting, trading and cultural links with South Africa, and the maximum use of University facilities in this campaign. One particular way students could spearhead the campaign against racist sport would be to give special assistance to the establishment of anti-racist sporting bodies in New Zealand, starting with University sports groups, to offer an alternative to the international sporting community for recognition as the 'official' sports bodies.

The combatting of racial oppression in New Zealand; special assistance to underprivileged groups such as Polynesians in education; a rapid increase in the amount and quality of Polynesian studies throughout our entire education system; and the teaching of Maori and Maori Studies in all schools, and in University to Ph.D. level.

The abolition of the security police from campus and total abolition of the Security Service.

A Irving wage payable to all students, and for open admissions, thus prohibiting no one from the chance of a University education; full university democracy and the abolition of secrecy in administrative matters such as financing the various departments; and the general concept of the University which serves the people and their urgent struggles, rather than the capitalist establishment.

This is a minimum, generalised programme which obviously requires a great deal of explanation and elaboration. In fact, the elections were a golden opportunity to explain these challenging ideas to a receptive audience.

What did the radical activist team actually do? The campaign consisted of 'Rat' leaflets, personal pamphlets, statements in Salient, policy speeches, election-day blurbs and a 'demonstration'. The candidates - were undoubtedly radical and activist; they were also fully capable of explaining why they were.

The main pamphlet, expensively produced, pictured the team . . . playing in a jug band. Few people have any objection to jug bands, but what was the relevance to radical politics? The excuse was that it was "to show that radicals are not serious all the time". Many radical students thought this pathetic; the voting showed what the rest of the students thought.

This pamphlet was the only place where the programme appeared—apart from in a cyclostyled leaflet. Instead of the policy as stated above, coupled with a broad socialist perspective, specific details of policy, including unimportant "vote catchers' such as 'suburban concerts', were mixed without explanation amongst general principles which were in even more vague terms than in the minimal policy above.

One striking example was the Women's Liberation policy. This is a new concept, and requires much elaboration. But instead of an explanation tied in with the key demands—free and legal abortions, equal pay now, free child care—this part of the programme was reduced to the words "Women's Liberation" on the cover of the leaflet, the promise to put a contraceptive machine inside the men's toilets (!!!), and for a 24-hour creche. The last point was positive, but the overall result was to repel voters en masse. I heard of two girls discussing who they were going to vote for. One said "Therese O'Connell for secretary?", and the other replied "Oh, no—she's that Women's Liberation one." So they both voted for the other candidate.

The personal propaganda of each candidate was abysmal, from the viewpoint of spreading ideas. Lesley Jacobs did not mention she was on the 'Rat' team, and brought out only one proposal that could be regarded as radical—higher bursaries. The other candidates certainly informed everyone they were Rats, but gave little reason to vote for them other than that they were respectively a Fat Rat, Hairy Rats, and a King Rat. Even Big Norm doesn't have the cheek to seek votes on the basis that he's a Fat Kirk!

The candidates' speeches only touched on the issues in the most vague and general way.

But perhaps the 'Rat' demonstration best symbolised the whole effort. The basic demand was not unreasonable—police could do with better conditions of work. But it was pushed in such a way as to alienate everybody. "Rats and Pigs unite", said a placard. Apart from producing annoyance and/or tired yawns all round, this must have been the dullest election gimmick since Honest Andy Easton handed out apples to startled student voters in the presidential election two years ago.

The Salient statements and the election-day blurbs could not have been more back-sliding and watery. Voters were invited to 'vote for Therese O'Connell because she was "realistic", "hard working", and because she had "personality", and also apparently the fact that she's in the Catholic Society was important too. Only Bill Logan and Richard Suggate attempted to mention anything radical, and it was at such a vague level as to be meaningless.

Revolutionary policies require forceful, dynamic advocacy. The serious candidates for the 'Rat' team were all voted down by those at the first meeting, apart from myself. Being powerless—as part of a minority to influence the campaign, I withdrew when 'Rat' was clearly becoming opportunist and gimmicky through and through. The candidates had a number of chances to push the programme, but they failed miserably; the campaign was a complete waste of time and made those involved appear a laughing stock. The voters who did support them did so in spite of the campaign rather than because of it.

The answer of the right wing Labour leader to this is to move further to the right. For him short-term vote catching is his one pursuit.

The revolutionary, not being primarily oriented to vote catching, puts his principled programme above all. When he wins, it is indeed a victory.