The School Students Activists' Forum, held in London on Sunday 16th March, attracted around 150 school and FE students. Most of these were from London, although activists from cities such as Nottingham, Manchester and Birmingham also attended.
The event was fairly positive, because of the success of the walkouts of the past week and the prospect of more to come. The obvious increase in the levels of dissidence, militancy and radicalisation amongst students is also very encouraging.
Students taking action against this war have repeatedly emphasised their frustration at being excluded from political life, and their views rarely being taken into account. That's why a group should exist to represent school students within the Stop the War Coalition.
The event on the 16th, as well as proving all the positive things about the students' anti-war movement, also raised important questions about democracy, representation and the way forward for the anti-war movement.
Part of one discussion centred around the need to link up with workers, and all the activists in attendance realised how important it was to link up with trade unionists in the campaign against the war. Linking with workers, certainly, is vital for the student anti-war movement and is one of the biggest steps forward it could take.
Another step forward would be to encourage and cultivate - rather than stamp out - political discussion. Many activists on the 16th wanted to discuss the politics and ideas behind our opposition to the war, but this was vetoed by the chair. Why? We were told that we weren't allowed to argue against the line of the STWC proper, and besides, didn't have time. If we didn't have time, why did the chair allow a lengthy discussion on whether or not we should discuss politics. Surely we could have spent this time actually having the discussion rather than discussing it?
Resolutions put forward by various activists were also disregarded. Apparently, the School Students STWC was meant to be nothing more than a miniature reflection of the 'adults'' STWC. What kind of representation is this?
When the time came to elect a representative to sit on the STWC steering committee, activists wanted to know how she would be accountable to the rest of the group. It was resolved that measures would be taken to enable internal democracy and accountability - such as the setting up of a Yahoo Group. Such a simple thing can be really effective, and does wonders for democracy and communication within a group. It would also create a forum for the political discussions we were not allowed to have at the meeting.
Walkouts are wonderful - but our movement should not end there. What about the ideas and politics upon which our movement is based? Student activist should not only organise walkouts, but also meetings and educationals. What about linking the anti-war movement to workers' struggles to put forward our own, positive agenda? These were all touched on briefly, but the students' movement, and indeed the anti-war movement as a whole needs to consider these much further.
The anti-war movement is absolutely enormous, and that is an incredible thing. No-one can take away the fact that we had a demo of 2,000,000 people in London - the biggest demonstration in Britain for anything, ever. We've seen thousands of students walk out of school in opposition to the war. We've heard Trade Union leaders speak about the importance of 'human solidarity.' But this does not mean that the anti-war movement is perfect and not to be criticised. We need to discuss how we can build the movement to make it even stronger. We can do this by basing our movement on progressive thinking and working within campaigns like No Sweat to not only campaign against this war, but to cut the roots of war entirely.
By a school student activist
