Fitting the battle of life

After a couple of years of trying, the Union are once again getting down to a governance review. Looks like this time they’re trying to do it properly, with actual consultation with students and everything! (As an aside, one of the characters in the booklet about trustees wears a Tux t-shirt!)

This leads me to wonder about governance in general, of large communities of people. (The Union has around 20,000 student members.)

The Union is meant to be a governing body. We elect sabbatical officers, committee members and other representatives who are meant to pass policy and look after the running of our bars and cafés so we don’t have to worry about it. This is not entirely unlike how actual democracy works. People elect other people to look after their interests and do ’stuff’ for their benefit without having to worry about these things on a day-to-day basis.

Countries have Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings, Queens and/or despots. We have no clear leadership structure, just six sabbatical officers in an office near one of the bars. Individual societies and clubs have Presidents, but not the Union. This, I think, is meant to be ‘fair’ or something.

Without clear leadership, the Union has bogged down in factional politics. The Sabbs seem at time to be fighting a losing battle against some sectors of the student population who seek to pass some rather controversial motions. At others, they seem to be in disarray and not at all in touch with the students they purport to represent.

How would having a clear ‘leader’ solve any or all of the problems we currently face?

A sole person whose responsibility is to provide a clear, unified vision would, er, do just that. The Union has none of it so far. The Sabbs seem content not really to shake the boat, even a little bit. You stick by the rules and we’ll all get along fine, they seem to say. Well sod that. We’re meant to be students.

A sole person whose remit is to be a figurehead for the student popualtion would be a single face for people to remember, one email address to send their concerns to. Six people isn’t many, I’ll admit, but simplification can’t be a bad thing, right?

A sole person to chivvy the Sabbatical team up when they’re slacking/arguing/not working solely for students would, again (do you see a theme?), do that.

Is it a job I’d want? Hell no. But I think it’s a job that should be created in my Union.

This is the text of a note I posted earlier today on Facebook, just to get it out into the wider public. It’s pretty much a companion piece to the post I made a few days ago about the troops out of UCL motion, but refines my stance:

I just want to clear something up about why I want there to be an EGM (either because it is called by 400 students, or as a result of disciplinary action).

It is not because I fundamentally disagree with particular motions that were passed at the re-convened AGM last week. I take issue only with the way the meeting was run, which for me renders anything that happens at the meeting undemocratic. I want all the motions rescinded. Not just the Palestine one, not just the OTC one. The top-up fees and the deportation one as well. None of them can stand as legitimate motions in the context of the meeting.

I reiterate. This is not about politics. It is about democracy. That is why it is important, in the likely event of an EGM, you should try and attend. Please keep your eyes on your e-mails for news of when an EGM might be – probably early next term. It’ll be one evening of your time, but will secure the future of democracy at UCL Union. Tell your friends, flatmates and countrymen to come too, not to support any particular voting bloc, not to support any particular political cause, but to back democracy. It’s all important. Please.

I am still against the troops motion, but that is not the reason I back an EGM. (I’m not a sore loser.)

For more information you may want to read this issue of one of the student publications [warning:pdf link] here.

Recently, at a rather silly AGM (but that’s another story for another day), UCL Union passed a motion effectively banning Officer Training Corps and the Territorial Army and other such ‘military organisations’ from Union events and premises. An amendment to this motion stressed it wasn’t anti-troops, and tried to bring up some non-discrimination rubbish about homosexuals in the OTC. It was, to all intents and purposes, an anti-Iraq war (even though it’s over) and anti-Bush motion:

Now, because of the circumstances of the meeting and the vote, I feel pretty confident in saying that the views expressed in the motion are not the views of the majority of UCL students (who are, I must admit, a pretty apathetic bunch). There are several hundred of us – far more than even turned up to the meeting, and far far more than the number who backed the motion – signed up to a facebook group protesting the result of the AGM, and organising a petition for an EGM where the policies voted on at the AGM will hopefully be repealed.

I don’t necessarily support the war in Iraq (and the current mission is UN-mandated, we must remember) or other Bush foreign policies. But if a vocal minority want to protest about that, banning troops from Union events is not the way forward. It’s distinctly off-target, in fact.  Backers of the motion have consistently got their facts wrong and ignored rational argument, disputing statements made by members of the OTC when they have no factual basis to do so, and branding all opposers of the motion ‘right-wing lunatics’. Anyone who knows me might agree I’m a lunatic at times, but in no way right-wing. Just a rational human being who sees the sheer stupidity of the motion.

Further, this has been reported in the Sun, the Guardian, the Times and the Independent (and I think the Torygraph as well), bringing our Union – and by extension all of its members – into disrepute. The actions of a few have reflected badly on the whole. While sometimes being vocal and drawing attention to your opinions is valid and legitimate, to do so while bringing others into disrepute is unacceptable. By all means, let people know your opinions. But don’t pass it off as mine.