Ti-Jean Martin: Oxford’s political party societies are not fit for purpose
Entering Oxford University as a left-leaning student, word-of-mouth references and a Cherwell feature quickly gave me the impression that its party-aligned political societies did indeed constitute “a drifting elite with few ideas”. This didn’t put me off the concept entirely – I was in favour of the move to create a Green Party society, a feat that, this Michaelmas, has been accomplished alongside a Reform UK-aligned equivalent.
Yet whilst these moves will diversify a stagnant atmosphere in terms of party allegiance, it seems unlikely that they will break the mold of the political society. Neither will they move the Oxford political scene any closer to the relevance it sorely lacks.
One needn’t look as far back as 1968 to see the potential of campus politics to catalyse change. At Oxford, however, the idea that political action can actually change things seems to have been forgotten, or perhaps never thought of. Members of the Labour Club (OLC), Liberal Association (OSLA), and Conservative Association (OUCA) – or all three, as many political BNOCs seem to be – themselves would probably acknowledge that the ‘big three’ do more drinking and Union connection-making than political action.
If they are breeding future prime ministers, as the reputation goes, they’re doing it the old way, serving as old boys’ networks-to-be between their many shared members. This is demoralising in a place with the potential to create future leaders, a place with the power to turn a generation’s disillusionment into meaningful, different politics. It doesn’t do anything to help Oxford’s reputation as an elite bubble, cut off from political issues that actually matter, either.
It would have been nice to think that creating two new societies could remedy these issues, yet change can cut both ways. Concerns have already been raised about the implications of the Reform Society’s affiliation with Reform UK, a party that has been accused of Islamophobia, for the safety of Muslim students at Oxford. The society has also recently invited the controversial self-described “race realist” Nathan Cofnas to speak at Oriel College in November, spawning the announcement of a protest by the campaign group Stand Up to Racism. It remains to be seen who will constitute the Oxon Universities Reform Society’s membership, but it is quite possible that many of them will carry OLC, OSLA, or OUCA cards – the same may well be true for the Oxford Student Greens.
This cannot be the price we pay for an ostensibly more diverse partisan landscape. But where does Oxford’s politically-inclined student body go, then? To the ‘big three’, which the aforementioned feature labelled the “stand-up comedy clubs” of a faded elite? To the new societies on left and right, whose potential for both harm and good remains to be seen? And should we abandon partisanship altogether? Something like the October Club, which in theory constitutes a left-wing space without party alignment, could be replicated across the political spectrum, but this model has its own problems – the Oxford Social Democrats’ (formerly Left Society) attempt to create such an environment appears to have fizzled out.
Within the current system, there seems to be no answer to these questions. Unless the party-aligned political societies start actually doing politics, they will remain unfit for purpose.
Elizabeth Millett: Oxford’s political party societies are fit for purpose
Oxford’s political party societies have a dual reputation. On one side of the coin, many boast long-standing histories and influential alumni, from Clement Attlee to David Cameron. Flip to the tail end, and you find a termly reality of boisterous drinking socials and inconclusive debates that are, in the words of Cherwell’s Stanley Smith, “more fixated with personality than party”. But does this reputation really disrupt the confines of what these political party societies are made for?
The recent establishment of Reform and Green Party societies has prompted a return to analysing the state of Oxford’s student political groups. A predictable flurry of apprehension has followed this broadening of a scene that currently appears both contradictory and relatively subpar. Though understandable, I feel these criticisms have lost touch with the actual purpose of political party societies.
The self-proclaimed objective of the Oxford University Conservatives Association (OUCA), penned by the current President Harriet Dolby, is to “provide a forum for students to discuss politics and policy” and encourage the “fostering [of] open and rigorous debate with those of all political persuasions”. Other groups’ intentions are similar. The Oxford Labour Club (OLC) expresses a commitment to a “conviction that ideas matter, that argument is worth having, and that a fairer society is worth working for”, while the months-old Oxon Universities Reform Society sets out in the opening statements of their website a strive towards “providing a space for free speech”.
We appear to have deluded ourselves into viewing these political societies, like all student societies for that matter, as more than what they are designed to be: a place for amateurs to channel and discuss their interests. At what point were student societies discouraged for being merely recreational? University environments are defined by members undergoing a process of growth and learning; they are not a final product. An unjust amount of pressure is placed on these student groups to provide term cards and socials of the calibre that might produce our next generation of leaders. This expectation is purely based on the careers of a few outstanding predecessors that are, bluntly put, anomalies. While politics should certainly not be considered a mere pastime (I have no intention of being satisfied with low-quality debate in these forums), these societies are certainly in an adequate position to carry out their self-proclaimed purpose of having passionate and engaged discussions.
Whether they do this well is a different matter. There is no denial that the list of zero-tolerance “Terms & Conditions” set out by the Reform society for their fourth-ever speaker event (chosen to be with controversial academic Nathan Cofnas) makes one wince. Similarly, the Green’s “lemonade and leftism” sessions are destined to lose any sliver of prospective zest when debates on nuclear energy and climate change are bound to become an echo chamber when held amongst students of the same political disposition – there is a clear distinction between being functional as a society and remotely impressive.
These societies can admittedly be disappointing in their execution, allegedly devolving into sessions of networking and natter. Their wavering relevance is not, however, symptomatic of being unfit for their purpose, but a case of often not living up to what they could do with the frameworks already in place.
