In the Beaver published a fortnight ago (2 March 2010, issue 725), Mr Steinfeld attempted, as so many have already, to close down the debate on the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the reforms. In his words, ‘there is no constitutional debate.’ Unfortunately, a significant proportion of the student body would disagree. What is less forgivable is what he proudly admits – namely, that he and others succeeded in preventing students from even discussing the reforms issue, let alone acting to rectify the lamentable situation that has arisen, by dismissing a motion that was submitted to the UGM. Apparently, we aren’t allowed to discuss this issue. This is symptomatic of much that was wrong with the process by which these reforms have been passed. Students who offered a dissenting voice have had their views stifled and many now feel completely alienated from their Union.
In his article, Mr Steinfeld consistently misunderstands the nature of students’ objections to the referendum, thereby demonstrating one of the many objections that motivated the no-confidencing of the Constitution and Steering committee. The fact that constitutional reform can only pass by a supermajority, mentioned in his article, is but one of the litany of errors that have been conducted in this referendum.
Perhaps Mr Steinfeld has now been made aware of the lengthy complaint lodged by Mira Hammad, which outlines over ten different grounds for dissatisfaction with the reform process? Perhaps he is comfortable with the fact that article three, which passed by the merely three votes, has had over thirty objections raised regarding its conduct? Chief among these complaints were those of several people who have related how they voted in favour of article three, when they intended to vote against it, owing to last minute changes to the ballot. Perhaps, then, he is content that most of these complaints were dismissed before being discussed by C&S, and the remainder have yet to be even considered? Perhaps he is content with this state of affairs. I for one, however, am not.
It seems evident that various members of C&S feel bitter that the students assembled at the UGM chose to vote the way they did. This bitterness is regrettable. However, asserting that the UGM which carried the vote of no-confidence was packed with what Steinfeld calls ‘Pal Soc, the SWP and other usual suspects’ is, to use his word, ‘insane’. The ‘basic truth’ is that the UGM was packed with people wanting to see Howard Davies. The vote of no-confidence therefore carried not on the back of a minority clique, but on the basis of popular student dissatisfaction, ironically expressed in a two-thirds vote against C&S, which is more than can be said for the referendum.
Apparently, the 5-2 vote regarding the constitutionality of the motion submitted to discuss the reforms (reported by Steinfeld as 5-1, demonstrating yet another attempt to expunge dissenting opinion) was beset by ‘blatant political voting’. It seems that Mr. Steinfeld is projecting his own political bias onto others. It is clear to me (not to mention Public Law lecturer Jo Murkens) that the referendum was unconstitutional. This is a legal, not a political assertion. I would advise anyone who disagrees to look at articles 12.1 and 14.1 of the constitution, available on the Students’ Union website. The constitution, which Mr Steinfeld marshals as and when he feels like it, cannot then be dismissed when it conflicts with his political agenda regarding online voting.
Moving on from the constitutional debate (which Steinfeld claims does not exist), let us consider the political debate regarding online voting, and the reason why so many people opposed it. When people come together in a UGM, they act collectively, coming into contact with like-minded people as well as those they disagree with. Out of this forum, alliances, campaigns, and meaningful action result. By contrast, online voting is an individual act. It serves to atomise the collective student voice, and encourages people to be passive rather than active members of their union. The implications of this ‘atomisation’ go well beyond the debate surrounding Israel-Palestine on campus, which Mr Steinfeld seeks to reduce it to. It serves to undermine students’ power to act collectively to achieve change, a power that we need now more than ever in the climate of public spending cuts and tuition fee hikes.
My sincere hope is that the constitution can be upheld, and the reforms rescued from the constitutional quagmire in which they find themselves. Finding a solution must involve regaining the goodwill and cooperation of those students that have hitherto been consistently shunted aside. However, sticking our heads in the sand and claiming that there is no debate to be had is certainly not a tenable solution.
Related posts:
- There is no constitutional debate, just civil war
- “Constitutional crisis” declared at UGM
- Reforms passed amidst complaints regarding constitutional validity
- The resolution of conflict
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, March 16th, 2010 at 08:33 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.
Constitutional quagmire needs a resolution
by Franck Magennis on 16 Mar 2010 in Comment
In the Beaver published a fortnight ago (2 March 2010, issue 725), Mr Steinfeld attempted, as so many have already, to close down the debate on the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the reforms. In his words, ‘there is no constitutional debate.’ Unfortunately, a significant proportion of the student body would disagree. What is less forgivable is what he proudly admits – namely, that he and others succeeded in preventing students from even discussing the reforms issue, let alone acting to rectify the lamentable situation that has arisen, by dismissing a motion that was submitted to the UGM. Apparently, we aren’t allowed to discuss this issue. This is symptomatic of much that was wrong with the process by which these reforms have been passed. Students who offered a dissenting voice have had their views stifled and many now feel completely alienated from their Union.
In his article, Mr Steinfeld consistently misunderstands the nature of students’ objections to the referendum, thereby demonstrating one of the many objections that motivated the no-confidencing of the Constitution and Steering committee. The fact that constitutional reform can only pass by a supermajority, mentioned in his article, is but one of the litany of errors that have been conducted in this referendum.
Perhaps Mr Steinfeld has now been made aware of the lengthy complaint lodged by Mira Hammad, which outlines over ten different grounds for dissatisfaction with the reform process? Perhaps he is comfortable with the fact that article three, which passed by the merely three votes, has had over thirty objections raised regarding its conduct? Chief among these complaints were those of several people who have related how they voted in favour of article three, when they intended to vote against it, owing to last minute changes to the ballot. Perhaps, then, he is content that most of these complaints were dismissed before being discussed by C&S, and the remainder have yet to be even considered? Perhaps he is content with this state of affairs. I for one, however, am not.
It seems evident that various members of C&S feel bitter that the students assembled at the UGM chose to vote the way they did. This bitterness is regrettable. However, asserting that the UGM which carried the vote of no-confidence was packed with what Steinfeld calls ‘Pal Soc, the SWP and other usual suspects’ is, to use his word, ‘insane’. The ‘basic truth’ is that the UGM was packed with people wanting to see Howard Davies. The vote of no-confidence therefore carried not on the back of a minority clique, but on the basis of popular student dissatisfaction, ironically expressed in a two-thirds vote against C&S, which is more than can be said for the referendum.
Apparently, the 5-2 vote regarding the constitutionality of the motion submitted to discuss the reforms (reported by Steinfeld as 5-1, demonstrating yet another attempt to expunge dissenting opinion) was beset by ‘blatant political voting’. It seems that Mr. Steinfeld is projecting his own political bias onto others. It is clear to me (not to mention Public Law lecturer Jo Murkens) that the referendum was unconstitutional. This is a legal, not a political assertion. I would advise anyone who disagrees to look at articles 12.1 and 14.1 of the constitution, available on the Students’ Union website. The constitution, which Mr Steinfeld marshals as and when he feels like it, cannot then be dismissed when it conflicts with his political agenda regarding online voting.
Moving on from the constitutional debate (which Steinfeld claims does not exist), let us consider the political debate regarding online voting, and the reason why so many people opposed it. When people come together in a UGM, they act collectively, coming into contact with like-minded people as well as those they disagree with. Out of this forum, alliances, campaigns, and meaningful action result. By contrast, online voting is an individual act. It serves to atomise the collective student voice, and encourages people to be passive rather than active members of their union. The implications of this ‘atomisation’ go well beyond the debate surrounding Israel-Palestine on campus, which Mr Steinfeld seeks to reduce it to. It serves to undermine students’ power to act collectively to achieve change, a power that we need now more than ever in the climate of public spending cuts and tuition fee hikes.
My sincere hope is that the constitution can be upheld, and the reforms rescued from the constitutional quagmire in which they find themselves. Finding a solution must involve regaining the goodwill and cooperation of those students that have hitherto been consistently shunted aside. However, sticking our heads in the sand and claiming that there is no debate to be had is certainly not a tenable solution.
Related posts:
This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 16th, 2010 at 08:33 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.