On Thursday 15th October, a Edinburgh University Student Association (EUSA) referendum passed with an 84 per cent majority: 2,834 votes in favour, against a combined 558 abstentions and votes against. The results aim to reshape student democracy in Edinburgh.
If there is one thing that me and the Sabbatical Officers can agree on in their proposal to alter EUSA’s approach to “student voice,” it is that student democracy is not functional as an institution. Regardless of our lack of impact on the University Court, even within EUSA, student democracy feels more like a promise than a reality of the university experience.
EUSA is seeking to change this through its new proposal. Flagship policies include creating student-led Liberation Networks to support marginalised students, introducing department representatives in larger, diverse schools such as ECA, ending elections for student representatives, and removing the student council. It’s those last two proposals that concern me. Student representatives will now be handpicked by an unidentified panel of staff and students. They will no longer hold significant decision-making meetings, as there will no longer be a student council, severely diminishing their role.
The proposal was in response to a report by Coole Insight Ltd., a specialist consultancy firm for student unions, brought in because EUSA had not altered their democratic process for a decade. Apparently, they concluded that voting for your own representatives is dated. It seems Edinburgh, like the rest of the world, is leaving liberal democracy in the 2010s.
Of course, I’m not trying to claim that our Sabbatical Officers are would-be tyrants. The current spate of Sabbatical Officers won’t see these changes actualised in their one year terms, and I do support the plan to professionalise the role. I don’t think removing the majority of the democratically elected body improves student democracy. To streamline and improve our representation, we must remove all those cumbersome elections in which students choose someone who represents their experience. But democracy isn’t quality over quantity. This all sounds terrible.
Fortunately, it doesn’t matter.
Remember the referendum, and its whopping 84 per cent majority? Only around 3,300 people voted, out of nearly 50,000 possible undergraduate and postgraduate students. That’s less than 7 percent. I didn’t vote. Did you? Statistically speaking, probably no, even if you are reading the student paper.
Let’s be honest with ourselves, students don’t actually care about student democracy. Even with the incredible turn-outs at the recent student-staff assemblies it doesn’t seem like that has transferred into an uptick in interest in the EUSA referendum. The apathy is so great that there wasn’t even a ‘no’ campaign.
In which case, what’s the point? Regardless of whether it’s a perfect democratic system, a Sabbaticaligarchy or something in between, as long as apathy is the order of the day, a small group of active students will take up the majority of decision-making capital in the EUSA.
Image by Isabel Beiober for The Student.
Related
Autocracy or Apathy: The death rattle of student democracy
On Thursday 15th October, a Edinburgh University Student Association (EUSA) referendum passed with an 84 per cent majority: 2,834 votes in favour, against a combined 558 abstentions and votes against. The results aim to reshape student democracy in Edinburgh.
If there is one thing that me and the Sabbatical Officers can agree on in their proposal to alter EUSA’s approach to “student voice,” it is that student democracy is not functional as an institution. Regardless of our lack of impact on the University Court, even within EUSA, student democracy feels more like a promise than a reality of the university experience.
EUSA is seeking to change this through its new proposal. Flagship policies include creating student-led Liberation Networks to support marginalised students, introducing department representatives in larger, diverse schools such as ECA, ending elections for student representatives, and removing the student council. It’s those last two proposals that concern me. Student representatives will now be handpicked by an unidentified panel of staff and students. They will no longer hold significant decision-making meetings, as there will no longer be a student council, severely diminishing their role.
The proposal was in response to a report by Coole Insight Ltd., a specialist consultancy firm for student unions, brought in because EUSA had not altered their democratic process for a decade. Apparently, they concluded that voting for your own representatives is dated. It seems Edinburgh, like the rest of the world, is leaving liberal democracy in the 2010s.
Of course, I’m not trying to claim that our Sabbatical Officers are would-be tyrants. The current spate of Sabbatical Officers won’t see these changes actualised in their one year terms, and I do support the plan to professionalise the role. I don’t think removing the majority of the democratically elected body improves student democracy. To streamline and improve our representation, we must remove all those cumbersome elections in which students choose someone who represents their experience. But democracy isn’t quality over quantity. This all sounds terrible.
Fortunately, it doesn’t matter.
Remember the referendum, and its whopping 84 per cent majority? Only around 3,300 people voted, out of nearly 50,000 possible undergraduate and postgraduate students. That’s less than 7 percent. I didn’t vote. Did you? Statistically speaking, probably no, even if you are reading the student paper.
Sarah Helm’s exemption from the law: Anomaly or precedent?
Let’s be honest with ourselves, students don’t actually care about student democracy. Even with the incredible turn-outs at the recent student-staff assemblies it doesn’t seem like that has transferred into an uptick in interest in the EUSA referendum. The apathy is so great that there wasn’t even a ‘no’ campaign.
In which case, what’s the point? Regardless of whether it’s a perfect democratic system, a Sabbaticaligarchy or something in between, as long as apathy is the order of the day, a small group of active students will take up the majority of decision-making capital in the EUSA.
Image by Isabel Beiober for The Student.
Share this:
Like this:
Related