‘There is nothing wrong with change as long as it is in the right direction’, quipped the too often quoted Winston Churchill. Now, for fear of leaving readers with the wrong impression, I would add that I am no great fan of Ol’ Man Winston. Gross anti-Semitism and arguing for the gassing of Kurds in Iraq isn’t really my scene. In light of the proposed Students’ Union reforms however, the idea that change is necessarily a positive thing is something worth addressing.
Over the past few months the Students’ Union has consulted precisely 496 students about reform, asking them what they think is relevant, what can be improved and what should be scrapped altogether. The final reform paper outlines the complete overhaul of many of the current union structures, in a few cases making them better and in a few cases over bureaucratising and taking away from the democratic tradition that makes LSESU so renowned. I hope that in the coming weeks students will read the reform paper and eventually vote to retain the structures that foster democracy and accountability in its truest sense.
One of the proposals in the reform paper is to extend voting that usually happens in the weekly Union General Meeting to online and allow for voting all day after the meeting. At first glance this appears a relatively uncontroversial proposal; surely a way to increase voter turn-out? Surely therefore, a way to increase democracy? Yet in reality what online voting does is remove the ability to debate policy and turn voting into a passive, rather than a political act. Debating at a weekly UGM, not only results in policy decisions, but it empowers those who take part to get involved in the change that has been decided upon. The UGM is a weekly focus for our Unions’ collective action and a truly active democracy is not based on clicking a button every week, but arguing, leafleting and campaigning.
Online voting also disadvantages minorities within the LSE community. Whether or not one agrees with many of the most controversial motions that have passed through our union this year, the fact remains that they have done so only after lengthy and polemical debate, debate that allows for students who may be a minority initially to put their views. An issue as important as ‘No Platform for Fascists’ would most likely not have passed if put to referenda without addressing the legitimate concerns of free speech that were discussed at UGM. The UGM as it stands is dominated by an unattractive, pretty boring clique of people, many of whom have never done a decent day of campaigning in their life. But rather than water down our structures and devaluing the political choice we should instead seriously address why students do not come to UGM.
A further issue of serious concern in the reforms is the proposal of ‘lay’ or external trustees. We are told that external trustees bring necessary expertise and would save us money on legal or financial advice. But what they also bring is the attitude that legal and financial security has to precede student welfare. The notion that business acumen is a necessary pre-requisite to running an organisation is simply not true. Indeed in the case of organisations that exist to provide a service, study after study has proven the desire to maintain profit (even amongst so called ‘Charity’ organisations) acts as a hindrance rather than a help. Surely it is better to pay for objective advice when needed, rather than bizarrely giving external organisations representation at the highest levels of our Union. Furthermore questions of accountability and appointment of trustees are not sufficiently outlined in the reform proposal. It is all too easy for trustees to be appointed and end up completely unaccountable or recallable to students.
I am not against change, many of the proposals are welcome and needed, but uninformed change can have an impact long after we have voted on it. LSE is the only Students’ Union to still have a weekly general meeting open to all students. The Union has led struggles against racism, fascism and been at the forefront of campaigns to defend the oppressed. In a year in which students are going to face billions of pounds of cuts and increasing tuition fees we have to ratchet up those struggles. But that involves asking the question ‘What do we, as students, want to do’ and not ‘What do we want the Union to do on our behalf’.
Related posts:
- A cautious eye over teaching reform
- Furthering the Debate – A cunning stunt
- Furthering the Debate – Ashamed of my Union
- Union governance reform on schedule
- Election reform defeated amid Union General Meeting chaos
This entry was posted
on Monday, February 1st, 2010 at 11:59 and is filed under Comment.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
SU reform up for debate
by Estelle Cooch on 1 Feb 2010 in Comment
‘There is nothing wrong with change as long as it is in the right direction’, quipped the too often quoted Winston Churchill. Now, for fear of leaving readers with the wrong impression, I would add that I am no great fan of Ol’ Man Winston. Gross anti-Semitism and arguing for the gassing of Kurds in Iraq isn’t really my scene. In light of the proposed Students’ Union reforms however, the idea that change is necessarily a positive thing is something worth addressing.
Over the past few months the Students’ Union has consulted precisely 496 students about reform, asking them what they think is relevant, what can be improved and what should be scrapped altogether. The final reform paper outlines the complete overhaul of many of the current union structures, in a few cases making them better and in a few cases over bureaucratising and taking away from the democratic tradition that makes LSESU so renowned. I hope that in the coming weeks students will read the reform paper and eventually vote to retain the structures that foster democracy and accountability in its truest sense.
One of the proposals in the reform paper is to extend voting that usually happens in the weekly Union General Meeting to online and allow for voting all day after the meeting. At first glance this appears a relatively uncontroversial proposal; surely a way to increase voter turn-out? Surely therefore, a way to increase democracy? Yet in reality what online voting does is remove the ability to debate policy and turn voting into a passive, rather than a political act. Debating at a weekly UGM, not only results in policy decisions, but it empowers those who take part to get involved in the change that has been decided upon. The UGM is a weekly focus for our Unions’ collective action and a truly active democracy is not based on clicking a button every week, but arguing, leafleting and campaigning.
Online voting also disadvantages minorities within the LSE community. Whether or not one agrees with many of the most controversial motions that have passed through our union this year, the fact remains that they have done so only after lengthy and polemical debate, debate that allows for students who may be a minority initially to put their views. An issue as important as ‘No Platform for Fascists’ would most likely not have passed if put to referenda without addressing the legitimate concerns of free speech that were discussed at UGM. The UGM as it stands is dominated by an unattractive, pretty boring clique of people, many of whom have never done a decent day of campaigning in their life. But rather than water down our structures and devaluing the political choice we should instead seriously address why students do not come to UGM.
A further issue of serious concern in the reforms is the proposal of ‘lay’ or external trustees. We are told that external trustees bring necessary expertise and would save us money on legal or financial advice. But what they also bring is the attitude that legal and financial security has to precede student welfare. The notion that business acumen is a necessary pre-requisite to running an organisation is simply not true. Indeed in the case of organisations that exist to provide a service, study after study has proven the desire to maintain profit (even amongst so called ‘Charity’ organisations) acts as a hindrance rather than a help. Surely it is better to pay for objective advice when needed, rather than bizarrely giving external organisations representation at the highest levels of our Union. Furthermore questions of accountability and appointment of trustees are not sufficiently outlined in the reform proposal. It is all too easy for trustees to be appointed and end up completely unaccountable or recallable to students.
I am not against change, many of the proposals are welcome and needed, but uninformed change can have an impact long after we have voted on it. LSE is the only Students’ Union to still have a weekly general meeting open to all students. The Union has led struggles against racism, fascism and been at the forefront of campaigns to defend the oppressed. In a year in which students are going to face billions of pounds of cuts and increasing tuition fees we have to ratchet up those struggles. But that involves asking the question ‘What do we, as students, want to do’ and not ‘What do we want the Union to do on our behalf’.
Related posts:
This entry was posted on Monday, February 1st, 2010 at 11:59 and is filed under Comment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.