Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Newspaper of the Victoria University Students' Association. Vol 42 No. 11. May 28 1979

The No Confidence Motion

The No Confidence Motion

In other circumstances, if Andrew Tees faced a motion of no confidence, the actions of his supporters might have been something like: producing publicity material which clearly demonstrated what they believed to be his effectiveness as president, they would have prepared re-buttals for the accusations they expected, they might have produced explanations for those areas in which he had not performed well.

As many readers will know, that scenario did not eventuate. The campaign of Tees' supporters started with the publication of two leaflets last Tuesday. In these leaflets, rather than defending Tees, or supporting his actions, they attacked those who supported the no confidence motion. The motion, they said was being moved by the 'Maoist-Salient clique', that the PSA which supported (they claim) the motion "was a front for the Wellington Marxist Leninist Organisation."

They did not attempt to substantiate these ludicrous claims, produced no evidence for them nor did they even give examples of this "Maoist plot". I do not intend to pursue the falsity of these claims here. The important question is what these leaflets represented.

By attacking the supporters of the motion Tees' advocates were clearly implying that these people had no competence to play any role in determining the functioning of the Association - that simply by being allegedly communists they were unfit to exercise the rights that members of VUWSA possess.

It is crucial, if one is to understand what took place last Wednesday to consider the implications of moves to discredit those who hold a particular view. It is not an expression of a disagreement with that view, it is a denial that any have the right to hold it.

This attack is not an act of petty vindictiveness, but is necessary for two main reasons. Fascism has never been successful in an ideological battle - it has no dominant ideology, it is only the politics of expediency. Therefore fascism can only be successful where there is a power vacuum. The label communist is used to discredit those at present in positions of authority - with no regard for accuracy (it would be hard to demonstrate that such people as Stephen Underwood, Peter Edwards, Peter Thrush, Phil Sowman who have all played leading roles in the Association recently are "communists").

Tees used this technique in his election campaign last year. He did not stress his own suitability for the job, rather that those standing against him were "communists". At the SGM, Tees' defenders did not point out how effectively the President had operated, rather that his oppenents were supposed "communists". At the SGM, Tees' defenders did not point out how effectively the President had operated, rather that his opponents were supposed "communists".

The reason is [unclear: clean] the battle of ideas, fascism always comes off second best—but in the battle of rhetoric it has a head start - the inbuilt prejuidices of people which it plays upon.

This is the second reason that everyone who opposed Tees was labelled "communist". Because fascism cannot produce reasons to fight differing ideologies (particularly communism) they must attack dissenters, give them a label that will isolate them from the bulk of society.

Tees' supporters also played on another prejudice in the society — prejudice against students generally. By distributing leaflets to all the media in Wellington, they no doubt hoped to place, in the minds of the general public, the impression that all the student dissenters and protesters were these "Marxist-Leninist Salient types". Thereby laying the groundwork for a wide spread campaign against them.

The other move of the Tees gang was to attack Salient. Using the same techniques as were used to discredit supporters of the no confidence motion. Salient was attacked as being a "communist newspaper". Again no evidence was produced, but when you can rely on prejuidice none is necessary.

By attacking Salient, the intention is to discredit the organ which will, so long as I edit it at least, fight against any trend again against democracy within the Association. If they gain "control" of Salient it will be the beginning of the end of the Students' Association that we have known for the last decade.

We can expect to see the end of SRC, the end of an association that has any interests outside the university (which fundamentally means the end of an effective association as events within the university cannot be divorced from those without it), and the idea of free participation in the activities of the associaiton will breathe its last.

I predict that shortly we will see the emergence of an "anti-Salient" leaflet. This leaflet will devote itself to attacking, particularly those in Salient as well as organisations that oppose the new trend, like the PSA, and, on the whole, the Executive. Like the smear sheets before the SGM there will be no evidence to back up the claims, merely slander, innuendo and abuse.

When and if these sheets arrive they must be recognised for what they are, not an attempt at constructive criticism but an attempt to destroy the part of the association responsible for informing students on the activities of their association, amongst other things.