Manifesto – Democratic Front of Education Workers of UNSCH
MANIFESTO 1
Democratic Front of Education Workers of UNSCH
University of Huamanga 2
April 1974
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
In the development of societies, there is always a struggle between the new and the old, between the forces of the new society and the forces of the old society. On a cultural level, its development in our country occurs with the confrontation between the new culture and the old culture; between the forces of a national, scientific, and popular culture and the forces of a semi-colonial and semi-feudal culture.
University teaching staff are part of the intellectual class. As intellectuals, teachers consciously or unconsciously adhere to either the old culture or the new. The old culture is conservative, backward, reactionary, a reflection of imperialist and feudal domination in the economic and political spheres. The new culture is progressive and revolutionary, as it belongs to the country. To be with the old culture means to be against the people and history. To identify with the new culture and develop it means to be with the people, against imperialist and feudal culture; to identify with the new culture is to realize, on the basis of the unity of theory and practice, the national, scientific, and democratic culture, anti-imperialist and anti-feudal, the culture at the total service of the people.
Since its reopening, two opposing forces have clashed at the National University of San Cristóbal de Huamanga: the democratic and the anti-democratic. This struggle is evident at all levels of university life, both internal and external, in academic activities, research, and social outreach. It is noteworthy that the positive momentum that has allowed the university to move forward in an upward trajectory has always come from the progressive forces of the democratic line, from the forces of change and renewal. This driving force has, in most cases, acted spontaneously, in a disjointed manner, without adequate organization. On rare occasions, it has been possible to unite the majority of teaching staff around small guiding nuclei. However, despite the achievement of far-reaching successes, this situation cannot ensure the development of a proper university cultural practice towards the achievement of the University at the Service of the People, based on the defense of the Autonomous and Democratic University, which today the anti-democratic line wants to corporatize against the interests of the people.
With these basic criteria and in order to promote democracy among teachers within the University Movement, the democratic sector of teaching staff at the National University of San Cristóbal de Huamanga has formed a mass organization, adhering to the positions of the people, giving rise to the DEMOCRATIC FRONT OF TEACHERS OF THE UNSCH, whose activity is aimed at guiding the institutional life of the University towards the development of culture at the service of the vast majority, in the areas of academic activity, scientific research, and social outreach. Likewise, the Democratic Front should serve to promote the democratic and class-based line in the SUTE3-UNSCH.
Democratic and progressive intellectuals in general, and university teaching staff in particular, have a historic mission to fulfill in the development of our society. They have a duty to fulfill as part of the Popular Movement in its liberating struggle to shake off economic exploitation, political oppression, and cultural domination. The need to fulfill this mission is urgent. To this end, it is indisputable that only under the light of a just and correct ideology will we be able to put into practice the democratic and progressive position in university teaching, the progressive and democratic line of the national intelligentsia. Hence, in accordance with the historical moment we are living in, the DEMOCRATIC FRONT OF TEACHERS OF THE UNSCH guides its actions illuminated by the light of the thinking of Mariátegui, teacher and leader of the Peruvian people. We affirm that, in our country, it is not possible to be a progressive intellectual without following this guide: it is not possible to be a Peruvian revolutionary without the thinking of the Great Amauta4. Only by assimilating and developing his teachings, applying them creatively, will we be fulfilling the present history for the construction of a brilliant future.
FOR A UNIVERSITY IN SERVICE OF THE PEOPLE!
FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE UNIVERSITY!
LET’S PROMOTE THE DEMOCRATIC LINE IN THE UNIVERSITY MOVEMENT!
MARIATEGUI IS OUR GUIDE!
“THE EDUCATIONAL PROBLEM IS BUT ONE ASPECT OF THE SOCIAL PROBLEM; THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SOLVED IN ISOLATION.”
The University of Huamanga: The two line struggle
INTRODUCTION
The development of contradictions over more than fourteen years of our case study, where repetition has become, in our days, the greatest clarification and precision of the two ideologically and politically opposing lines, reflecting the current political situation in our country.
Today, in Peru, faced with the anti-democratic offensive of the traditional enemies of the people, who wish to deprive them of their most basic rights to free thought, freedom of expression, the right to free assembly and organization, and the right to life. January. In all areas and institutions of society, THE PEOPLE, aiming to continue their struggle against imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism, RAISE -at this specific moment – THE BANNER OF THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS.
Peruvian universities are not immune to the struggle between two opposing forces; this fundamental contradiction is reflected within them. Within universities, there is also a struggle between democracy and anti-democracy, with each side clearly displaying its own peculiarities; but there are always two opposing forces. The anti-democratic line seeks to suppress the democratic rights won by the people and the university movement during the historic days of the University Reform that began in Cordoba and were defended and expanded over more than 50 years of consistent struggle. It aims to crush the Autonomous and Democratic University in order to build, on its ruins, a corporate university, completely detached from the interests of the people and at the service of the economically and politically dominant classes. To achieve all these objectives, they are currently resorting, at the national level, to foreign intervention [unreadable] reorganizations declared from outside with the support of repressive forces in some cases, and reorganizations promoted along the same lines from within in other cases. In both cases, coordinated aggressive forces inside and outside the university are the ones acting directly, mercenaries infiltrated either as “students,” “professors,” or “secretaries.”
In the fight against this anti-democratic line—the bureaucratic line—the DEMOCRATIC LINE is growing and strengthening. Considering our sacred historical commitment to the people, and seeking to better fulfill our role as progressive intellectuals, we have organically formed the DEMOCRATIC FRONT OF TEACHERS OF THE UNSCH.
THE SITUATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HUAMANGA
Since its reopening, our University has gone through some pretty critical moments due to different types of external aggression, mainly seeking to condition it to the interests of certain ruling political parties. However, thanks to the decisive action of the people and their organizations, all difficulties were overcome in order to safeguard the autonomy of the University of Huamanga. Throughout these events, the democratic movement knew how to act and participate positively and was always the internal force that understood and collaborated in establishing an increasingly strong bond with the people. Thus, for example, in 1966, the UNSCH was attacked with cuts to its income, and the people, together with the democratic line, mobilized, giving rise shortly thereafter to the People’s Defense Front, and the budget was restored. At that time, we were governed by University Law 13417, which allowed for a certain degree of democratic life, which did not close the door to the free exchange of ideas or to free ideological opposition, the benefits of which were still evident in the metaphysical adversary, who, at that time, demonstrated at least a certain ideological level and dared to argue.
In 1969, the Peruvian University was hit hard by Law 17437, which suppressed the achievements of the University Reform; it sought to destroy all existing democratic features in favor of the development of an anti-democratic, bureaucratic line. This was the first measure that succeeded in disrupting the Peruvian University academically, economically, and administratively. Thus began the plan to create a movement loyal to the ruling party, starting with the conglomeration of certain right-wing, opportunistic, and other unconditional teachers who, in exchange for “job security,” sold out the most basic university rights in most of the country’s universities.
In this situation, the democratic wing of the University of Huamanga felt the urgent need to organize itself into what was called the OPINION GROUP. Under the protection of the anti-democratic university law, the leadership of the UNSCH fell into the hands of a group of right-wingers and other staunch supporters of the government, who immediately threatened the democratic gains and demands achieved through so many struggles, both at the student level and among teaching and non-teaching staff. Since then, at the University of Huamanga, the defense of these achievements, which contributed to the development of better service to the people, became more important than ever. That is why, joining forces and uniting around democratic principles, we decided to fight for the participation of the democratic line in the University Government, as one of the necessary forms of struggle to prevent the advance of the right and anti-democracy, which at that time in other universities, had taken over the leadership and was waging a strong campaign of repression against the democratic line, at the level of students and workers.
OUR HEGEMONY IS BASED ON REASON
We participated in the UNSCH government—despite the childish opposition of certain revolutionaries—during the period 1969–1973, and the events of recent years at the University and in the town of Ayacucho prove that our decision and action were positive. However, we were always the target of attacks, not only from the clearly anti-democratic faction, but also from disloyal revolutionary snipers. Both factions, which always agreed and coordinated their actions against the democratic line, accused us (and will have to continue to do so) of being the “hegemonic group,” the “group that governs the University.” It is time to clarify to those who have always strayed from the truth that, since the constitution of the Executive Council in 1969, WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN THE MINORITY in that Council: of the nine teachers who comprise it, the democratic line had only three representatives throughout the entire period. And if many of our proposals were accepted, it was always because they were fair, reasonable, and unbeatable in the face of error; because we knew how to propose solutions. We never resorted to the unreasonable! That is left to those who are incapable of presenting solid and reasonable arguments in defense of a position. But, in addition, what our adversaries unabashedly called our “hegemony” was always based on work linked to the interests of the majority and on principles. Because of this attitude, today the democratic line is, even if our opponents don’t like it, the majority view among the different factions of the Huamanga university movement, and it is the line that enjoys the sympathy of the people of Ayacucho. THAT IS AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE THE ESSENCE OF OUR HEGEMONY!
OUR WORK IN THE 69-73 PERIOD
Through the active participation of the democratic line within the UNSCH government and with the constant support of the grassroots, the following achievements, among others, were made:
–In the face of consecutive attempts to intervene and reorganize the UNSCH, the democratic line mobilized consistently and systematically thwarted them over the last five years. The plans of the University’s enemies, both internal and external, were exposed.
—We contributed to the national university movement by correctly guiding the DEFENSE OF THE UNIVERSITY as the central task that the university movement must fulfill at this stage; this defense includes: the struggle to defend the principles of the Peruvian University (autonomy, co-government, academic freedom, etc.), that is, DEFENSE OF DEMOCRATIC LIFE IN THE UNIVERSITY; the struggle for the survival and development of universities, and greater ties with the people.
—We achieved a nationwide statement from the UNSCH condemning the anti-university and anti-popular nature of Laws 17437 and 19326 and Resolution 1399 of the CONUP.
—We contributed to exposing the aforementioned laws through our oral and written complaints to the National Statutory Commission. Similarly, we systematically exposed and fought against the CEN Statute as a document that, in essence, implements Law 19326.
–We contributed, alongside the People’s Defense Front, to the abolition of the outdated and unscientific knowledge tests for admission to the UNSCH.
—We advocated for and achieved an increase in the number of places available for students to enter the UNSCH, a demand that has raised the number of students from 900 to more than 4,000 in the last five years, thus strengthening the institution and contributing to the economic development of Ayacucho’s working classes.
—We promoted a policy of better service for students, which included expanding the Student Dining Hall from a capacity of 500 diners to its current capacity of 2,000 diners. In addition, we froze the monthly fee at only 450.00 soles.
—We were, in one way or another, linked to the interests of the student majority and supported their strengthening by once again achieving recognition of the University Federation, despite the law that denies it.
—We promoted, structured, and defended professional training based on scientific principles and a solid ideological foundation rooted in the interests of the people and at the service of the people: professionals for the needs of the people.
—In the face of numerous attempts to establish limitations and elitism, advocated by the anti-democratic line, we systematically rejected the establishment of semester-based courses in the first year of university studies.
—We supported the students’ rejection of the monthly tuition payments established by law and approved by the majority of the Council. We succeeded in getting this agreement, which established payment rates that were detrimental to the students’ already insufficient finances, reconsidered and abolished.
—We promoted the growth and expansion of UNSCH’s facilities and laboratories, securing the construction of new buildings in the Student Residence and on the main campus. One of the latest achievements of the democratic line was precisely the approval and financing of the building, which today has begun to be constructed in the Engineering courtyard, and the buildings to be constructed in the Student Residence, as well as the laboratory obtained from Hungary, achievements that today the bureaucratic line claims as its own. Similarly, it was the democratic line that constantly demanded and contributed to the sale of the lots in the “Mariscal Cáceres” urbanization, so that the money obtained could be used to begin construction of the University City.
—In terms of workers, we fought for greater stability for teaching and administrative staff, and we achieved the appointment of all those who met the legal requirements, reducing the number of contract staff to a minimum.
—We managed to improve the salaries of teaching and administrative staff, breaking the policy of “freezing” salaries.
—After six months of fighting against the bureaucratic (undemocratic) line, we achieved the transformation of the Teachers’ Association into the current SUTE-UNSCH, the highest trade union body for teachers at the National University of San Cristóbal de Huamanga. We recall that this was achieved despite the opposition, both open and covert, of those who today, more clearly, are unconditionally serving the enemies of the University.
—We promoted the elevation of the University’s academic level through periodic evaluation of teachers, both at the student level and at the departmental level.
—In achieving these victories, fighting for the income and subsistence of the UNSCH, and providing better service to the people, we were the only ones who, in one way or another, even if only relatively, sought to strengthen the University’s ties with the people and supported their organizations.
All these advances were achieved during a very difficult period in the life of the country and, especially, of the University. When most universities entered into a serious and frank process of disorganization, crisis, and institutional collapse, preliminary steps toward the reorganization that many of them ended up undergoing, which pointed to their corporatization and greater reactionary tendencies, these achievements were accomplished. Against this backdrop, the University of Huamanga is one of the very few universities whose walls have withstood all external and internal attempts to create the conditions for external intervention that would have led to its closure, reorganization, and corporatization. The last two violent and synchronized attempts carried out by the reactionaries were the massacre of July 17, 1973, and the vandalism perpetrated by the same leaders in the second week of January of this year, which ended with the hospitalization (in serious condition) of students; and the month-long self-imposed recess of our House of Studies was nothing more than the culmination of this period. This latest attack on the University was instigated by certain teachers and students with clearly anti-democratic views, who, once again, had the active support of revolutionaries and certain relatives of high-ranking state officials. But the bureaucratic, anti-democratic line once again had to bite the dust of failure when it failed to achieve its objectives.
THE UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY OF MARCH 3, 1974
Unable to find favorable conditions to intervene and reorganize the UNSCH from the outside, the enemies promote the bureaucratic line within the University to attempt reorganization and corporatization from within, through agents and loyal servants. To carry out this plan, whose first task is to seize hegemonic control of the university’s leadership, they mobilized their propaganda outlets PRESO, LA, and NUEVA, as well as their unconditional supporters. The newspapers “EX-CRONICA” and the radio station “RADIO VICTORIA” in Lima, as well as local radio stations controlled by the ruling party, are mobilized. Through their mobilization, they unleash a campaign of discrediting, defamation, and slander against the UNSCH, a campaign that enjoys the complicit silence of the authorities to this day.
In preparation for achieving a “majority” in the University Assembly, which would allow them to take over the entire leadership without opposition in order to facilitate the fulfillment of the role that CONUP was unable to fulfill directly in the UNSCH (as happened in other universities, most recently in Cusco), the bureaucratic line under the leadership of the most recalcitrant and McCarthyist sector resorted to the dirtiest and most despicable means to win over “voting” supporters, such as slander, defamation, blackmail, and flaunting the support they have from the government.
It is not principles or institutional spirit that guided and guides them; it is irrational hatred of a line that they are incapable and powerless to combat ideologically; and it is also personal ambition, the careerism of those who dream of being “authorities,” of being ‘something’ or “someone,” even though some of them are convinced that they have not yet learned to read and write in university life; others who need the benefits that the position provides; and still others who see the opportunity to secure the position where they parasitize for some time longer. However, we believe that there are also people—very few, unfortunately—who, despite being of a right-wing ideology, still maintain a certain institutional criterion. But in the end, reality prevails. The bureaucratic, anti-democratic line is not and cannot form a homogeneous, compact, and coherent group; it is, as a geography teacher would say, a CONGLOMERATE of interests (none of which are popular in nature). Well, guided by such appetites, they achieved a majority in the category of Associates, by a difference of two votes (whoever has the majority in Associates has a majority in the Assembly; that is the “democracy” of Law 17437): To win over the undecided, they promised to elect them as “authorities” (they could only fulfill one of these promises because the ‘pie’ was too small); to others, they offered “insurance” against being branded by the students; There is no shortage of those disguised as “leftists” who, in order to win the vote of a revolutionary, say: “It is better to support the Sinamistas5, because if the ‘grim reaper’ comes, he will only sweep away the democratic line.”
The democratic line stated its position very clearly before the University Assembly. We indicated that its objectives should be:
a) To regularize the University Government, which had many “officials”;
b) To complete the Executive Council by selecting the
c) most capable teachers; To establish a University Government in which there was no numerical hegemony of a single line. In other words, a balanced composition of the Council, which would benefit the stability of the institution and its development.
In short, we sought to strengthen the governing bodies of the University of Huamanga, which was part of the task of defending the university. Our proposals were put forward and disseminated at all levels well before the partial elections prior to the University Assembly, and we committed ourselves to guaranteeing and respecting them REGARDLESS OF THE BALANCE OF POWER IN THE ASSEMBLY.
Does the numerical “majority” that the anti-democratic-bureaucratic line achieved with the weapons mentioned above mean that they represented the majority of UNSCH teachers? Not at all! They represented and represent the minority of teachers at our university. From the results of the elections for the composition of the University Assembly, we can see the true representation:
Democratic Line
Principal – 50%
Associate – 46%
Assistant – 65%
Head of Practice – 78%
Department Heads – 63%
Anti-Democratic Line
Principals – 50%
Associates – 54%
Assistants – 35%
Practice Heads – 22%
Department Heads – 37%
It is very clear that the undemocratic “majority” of the University Assembly DOES NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF THE GRASSROOTS. However, this numerical “majority” was achieved under the protection of the undemocratic Law 17437, which assigns a greater number of representatives in the Assembly to minorities. Thus, representatives of principals and associates constitute 75% of the Assembly. In the case of the last Assembly, it was the election of Associates that defined the “majority” of the anti-democratic line for the Assembly. There was no student participation, due to the majority and consequent rejection by the students of the anti-democratic spirit of the law.
The anti-democratic line sought our participation in the Executive Council in such a small number, two members, with the clear purpose of compromising us and: their anti-university plans, to validate their conservative, anti-student, and anti-democratic measures, in the role of “silent guest.”
In this situation, and by agreement with our grassroots supporters, understanding that we have not only fought at the government level, but that the most important thing is always the support and struggle of the grassroots, we decided not to accept any position on the Executive Council because that would compromise the democratic line and make it complicit in the internal intervention against the University of Huamanga. We will continue to fight for the defense of the University against internal and external enemies, FROM AND WITH the grassroots.
PERSPECTIVES
The bureaucratic line will continue to implement its measures of surrender to external anti-democratic forces, making use today of its numerical hegemony in the University Assembly, with which it TOTALLY controls the Executive Council. It is developing a Conupista6 plan of intervention and reorganization from within. It seeks to destroy the relative internal democratic life and the achievements made at all levels since the reopening of our University. They are beginning to implement a vertical, arrogant, and irrational dictatorship, supported by the repression of students and workers.
To carry out their disastrous anti-university and anti-democratic plans, they will attack and attempt to destroy union organizations such as SUTE-UNSCH, FUSCH, and the Employees’ Association. They will also seek to expel professors who do not submit to their interests; this has already been observed in Engineering, where threats are commonplace (it is the stronghold of Sinamos).
However, they will not find the democratic-minded faculty members unprepared or disorganized. For the democratic line, that is, for the DEMOCRATIC FRONT OF UNSCH TEACHERS, another stage of struggle is beginning for the DEFENSE OF THE UNIVERSITY, against internal and external intervention, for the defense of democratic freedoms, for a University that is increasingly linked to the people and that develops on the basis of and for the interests of the people. We will continue to promote democratic positions and the strength of struggle from intermediate organizations and, fundamentally, on the basis of enlightening and mobilizing the university and popular masses.
LET US UNITE IN DEFENSE OF THE UNIVERSITY!
LET US DEFEND DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS!
LET US FIGHT AGAINST INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INTERVENTION!
LET US BE GUIDED BY THE THOUGHT OF MARIATEGUI!
6 Footnotes
