The student congress as foundation of democratic culture on campuses, By Ahmed Aminu-Ramatu Yusuf

The Student Movement today, is near comatose. This has not always been the case. I attended Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria, in the 1980s. There I participated and, equally organised students’ Congress meetings to agitate for qualitative and accessible education, human rights, democracy, development and independence for Namibia, South Africa, Western Sahara, and the Palestine.

The Congress is the mass meeting of the entire students’ population. In those days, no official  of the Students’ Union was addressed  as an Excellency or Distinguished. All powers belonged to the Congress. Which was why among other means of salutations, we addressed the Congress as: “Great Nigerian Students”, “Powerful Nigerian Students”, “Distinguished Nigerian Students”, “Peoples’ Congress”, and “Supreme Congress”.  No organ of the union dare competed with the Congress in any way.

The Students’ Union Parliament was powerful. But its power was restricted. So, while  parliamentarians were addressed as: “Honourable Members” this was done only during parliamentary sessions. In ABU, for instance, students’ parliamentarians were addressed as “Honourable Members of the Peoples’ Parliament”. But this was done only to instil in the parliamentarians that their “honorable-ness” springs from serving the “people”, and not themselves.

The emphasis here is that the Students’ Movement was a mass-based and democratic one.

The Students’ Union Constitution, in theory and in practice, rested absolute political powers on the Congress. Rank-and-file students were encouraged to voice their views and to actively participate in unions’ affairs. They were allowed to observe students’ union parliamentary sittings  and even contribute to the deliberations.

In some cases, they were called to contribute in resolving critical issues, especially when there was a tie in parliament; or when the leaders, including the parliamentarians, wanted assurance that the decisions or actions they have taken or about to take, were popular, progressive, democratic and acceptable to the vast majority of students.

This was the character of the Student Unions of the late 1970s to the mid-1990. Elections into Student Union leadership positions were hotly contested, with the active participation of the entire student population. The parliament and Congress ensured that only elected leaders ran union affairs. They were held primarily responsible, accountable, and answerable for union affairs and were impeached when they failed. There were  nothing like “Special Advisers” “Special Assistants” as we have today.

Cases abound in ABU and the University of Ife (now: Obafemi Awolowo University), Ile Ife, where elected Student Union leaders were impeached and the entire Executive Council dissolved by the students’ parliament for failing to live up to popular expectations. Even Student Union parliaments were sometimes dissolved by the Congress, when they failed to hold the Executive Council responsible and accountable to the Congress.

The situation was not different with the apex students’ organisation – the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS), where I was privileged to be elected as Director of Travels and Exchange and later, Deputy President (National Affairs). Like the campus unions, NANS’ leaders were democratically elected.

The tenure of the Chairman of the NANS Convention  was  only for  the duration of the Congress meeting. The Executive Council members and those  of Committees and  Commissions were elected by the NANS Congress. The officers of the Senate, comprising the  President, Deputy President and Clerk, were democratically elected by the NANS’ Senate.

Also, any student from any tertiary institution could contest for any position provided that his/her institution’s union was a registered member of NANS and had  met its financial obligations to NANS.

Disciplinary actions in the unions and NANS were done democratically. In NANS, two-thirds of the Executive Council members can recommend any of its member unions for disciplinary action to the NANS Senate, which in turn could discipline any Executive Council member. The Senate disciplinary actions, in turn, can be reversed or confirmed by the NANS’ Congress.

NANS equally allowed for mass students’ participation in its activities. Any student from a tertiary institution could participate in the deliberations of the NANS Senate and Congress meetings, whether he/she is an official of a member  union or not. The proviso is that such a person has no voting  right.

The mass-based and democratic nature of the students’ movement was extremely important. First, it greatly encouraged competitive politics. Which was why the history of NANS, like that of campus students’ unions, is replete with the struggles of various students’ groups to control it. In these  struggles, the state, the political parties and the school authorities supported right wing student groups against independent students’ groups. The former usually lost.

Secondly, the mass-based and democratic nature of the movement greatly contributed in instilling unity and solidarity within students in the campuses; between students of one campus and those of other campuses; and amongst the rank-and-file students and their leaders. NANS, in fact, provided a forum where students’ leaders and activists from all over the country met to discuss  students’ problems, national and international issues, and adopt collective decisions on issues of importance.

Thirdly, the mass-based and democratic nature of the movement solidified the relationship amongst  student leaders all over the country, and between student  leaders and the rank-and-file students. Student leaders, as a result, were compelled to be responsive, responsible and accountable to the rank-and-file. Conversely, the later protect and defend their leaders.

Fourthly, the mass-based and democratic nature of the movement was a critical factor that made the ruling and governing classes, especially under military rule, to fear, respect and take students seriously. It was also why  NANS successfully organised and led popular struggles against despotic Vice Chancellors, neoliberalism and military rule.

Fifthly, student leaders knew that their survival as students, depend on being popular with the rank-and-file, in doing what the congress want done, in identifying with the masses in society, and in not fraternizing with government.

From the mid-1990s when student politicians hijacked the Student Movement. Its legacy has been completely destroyed. Student leaders in the campuses  began to  replicate the degeneracy  and decadence of national politicians.

Student politicians will never change from their degeneracy until the Congress reclaims its powers  and returns the movement to what it was: a mass-based and democratic movement, in which education, democracy and development are the inspiring, powerful, propelling and decisive force of the movement.

As Frantz Fanon said: “there is no such thing as a demiurge, that there is no famous man who will take responsibility for everything, but that the demiurge is the people themselves and the magic hands are finally, only the hands of the people.”

Ahmed Aminu-Ramatu Yusuf worked as deputy director, Cabinet Affairs Office, The Presidency, and retired as General Manager (Administration), Nigerian Meteorological Agency, (NiMet). Email: aaramatuyusuf@yahoo.com