It’s election night, 22:35 to be precise. Some of the results have already been announced, and I am in the library writing this piece, taking advantage of the fact that its theme won’t leave my mind.
I came to LSE a year and a half ago, excited at the prospect of a university where people cared about things. Back home in Portugal, extra-curriculars are dismissed as unimportant; here, they can become your career. So I thought: ‘This is an opportunity to do something different, to do something meaningful, and participate.’ But what I have found is the sheer dirtiness of student politics, which has so much of the back-stabbing, behind-the-door meetings and who-you-know-ness of real politics. So much for the cause of democracy.
Forgetting all this, we ran a campaign literally “on the streets”. With a comical YouTube video to get us some attention, Ashwin’s campaign for Anti-Racism Officer was one for the “real” minorities of the LSE: the people who want to do something different; the people who do not usually vote; the people who think that student politics should be fun. Had the voting been done through YouTube video viewing counts, we would have “won” with 546 votes, followed by Ashok Kumar, who ran and was successful for the full-time sabbatical position of Education Officer. Instead of having “forums” to discuss “anti-racism issues” there would be a Diversity Festival, bringing together LSE talent to celebrate the differences and similarities they share, instead of discussing this in flat forums and discussions which, although potentially beneficial, bring nothing different or radical to what is out there already. Most importantly, it was the only campaign in which the candidate had no political affiliation with either Islam and Judaism and which, considering the conflicts on campus over the last year over Israel and Palestine, it would make sense not to have an Anti-Racism Officer involved with either of the two sides. I am not saying that any of the candidates who were up for votes would not be excellent in their positions, but it is definitely an interesting fact that the winner of the race is also the Chair of the Israel Society, while the third runner up had the much sought-after “easy-click” endorsement of the Islamic Society.
What I discovered in this election process is how the “behind-the-scenes” politics works at the LSE. The most damaging of all things: society endorsements. Get the “endorsement” of a major society, such as the Islamic Society or the Athletics Union, and “bag” yourself 300 votes, minimum. It is not necessarily the fault of the members of these societies, who perhaps simply vote for the candidates they are told to vote for. It is perhaps also not the fault of the candidates themselves, who see a real need to navigate through this dirty sea of endorsements to win over votes for themselves. But what happens in the end? A minority-led vote, thanks to the people who bothered to fill out the online ballot. And whose fault is it then? To an extent, it is the fault of anyone too apathetic to vote, or even care about what is going on. Perhaps these are the same people who criticise the Students’ Union, but then again don’t care enough to find out what’s going on and make a change for the better, rather just choosing to whine. And partly, it is also the fault of “easy votes”: if you get yourself endorsed by a major society with faithful members, and if you are not guaranteed a win, then you can rest assured you will not have to try so hard to gain much-needed votes. You can be one of those people at the LSE who no one has heard about, and who has not, or even will not do much. But get an endorsement, and your chances of winning are boosted. So much for democracy: you do not care or are not bothered about who you are voting for, you do not care what their policies are. It is easier to just do as you’re told, isn’t it?
I am proud to say that our campaign ran without any of these so-called “major” endorsements, so sought after by eager future politicians to facilitate their “career advancement,” or by determined Facebook-friend-adding “CV Sprucers”. Instead, it is fair to say that our campaign consisted of what was probably the most diverse team on campus. There were Sikhs, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, Buddhists, agnostics, of all skin colours you might care to define. Fortunately (note, fortunately and not unfortunately), there were no major society endorsements. We lost by 29 votes, but mobilised 743 of the “real” minorities at LSE to vote.
When I say “real” minorities, I do not necessarily mean ethnic minorities; sometimes minority representations actually turn out to be majority representations at the LSESU. The “real” minorities I refer to are the disengaged, those who do not bother to vote, either because they are too lazy, do not know what is going on, or do not even care. It is the people who criticise the SU, but know nothing about the reforms that were made (many for the better), such as having full time staff employed to deal with student societies that, believe it or not, did not exist before. And believe me, from two days of campaigning, you will find many who really just do not care. It might not even be their fault specifically, but if democracy is supposed to be efficient, it has also got to be relevant. What is the point of having society endorsements so that only the minorities, and strictly not the majority, are represented? And more worrying, what is the point of democracy in the case where most people just do not care about it? And is nagging people on the streets, handing them leaflets, even a good way to campaign? Surely, if you have got a nice smile and can chat to strangers, that will help, but does it mean you are the best candidate for the role you are running for?
It is a sad reality with regards the one we are in. It is a reality of broken dreams of student democracy, of dirty politics that works by “suggesting” society members to vote (to the extreme of endorsing the first to the last preference on the ballot box), of flawed systems, or worse and most worrying, people who just don’t give a damn about what is going on around them.
And there is a very disappointing, sad story which has really struck me in the whole of this campaign. A friend of mine, who is a Muslim, and decided to campaign and vote for Ashwin’s Anti-Racism Officer campaign, lost a handful of friendships after sending out a Facebook message to 20 or so friends explaining why she was voting and campaigning for this particular campaign (meaning that she was not supporting the candidate that the Islamic Society “recommended” for voting). It is a personal case, and perhaps a very specific case, but the fact that it happened just comes to show the lack of freedom of speech that exists, even within personal relationships at our university. To me, it is repugnant, and comes to show the ignorant sheepishness of people who are at the LSE and who may become our bankers, our community champions or our HR managers of the future. This brings me back to the point that not only might the system be flawed, but perhaps so too are the people that make the system what it currently is.
But this story is not a sad story. It is a fun one, of two amazing days (plus all the days of preparation) of tireless campaigning in the freezing cold in which so many candidates and their supporters swamped and flooded the streets to win student votes (and special congratulations to Hannah Polly Williams for withstanding this with only very few layers of clothing and trays of cupcakes!) There was a 30 per cent rise in voting when compared to the last elections, which can only be a good thing. The exchanged smiles of support between candidates, the toughness developed when passers-by refused to take one’s flyers, down to the anxiety of election night: it was all part of the fun of democracy, as dirty as it may be.
Unfortunately, the reality of general student politics is still bleak and concerning; not only do systems not work in favour of democracy, but people do not seem to care enough about the good of everyone as a whole to even bother to achieve it.
Related posts:
- The Decade of Broken Dreams
- NUS affiliation fees broken down
- Dreams of Fresh club night Crushed by students
- Behold the rising student fervour
- Bi-partisan politics at the gallows
Pingback: GIRL ABOUT TOWN #34 «