The Arc and Fall
Mar. 15th, 2008 12:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mhuzzellLast semester, the St Andrews Socialists staged a coup. Well, y'know, not really, but we called it that because it was exciting. Basically, we'd all been feeling a bit annoyed with the Students' Association. A few of us had had people whispering to us that we ought to run for election to the Students' Representative Council, and the more we discussed it, the more we liked the idea. We would all run, we thought--get in there, be a voice for change from the inside. So when nominations opened in late October, 11 of us* ran for election. The President, Tom D'Ardenne, was pretty supportive, since he's spent a lot of time trying to pursuade people to get involved in the Union, and especially to run for election to any of the various positions (in the sweet but misguided notion that 'competition for elected positions' = 'democracy'). Steve Savage, the Director of Representation, reacted with not-quite-veiled annoyance, presumably because most of us were the same people who'd done the die-in in Freshers' Week. The DoR holds quite a lot of power, being the last point of appeal for all sorts of things. For instance, when we sent in our official complaint about the Union's reactions to the die-in, about the behaviour of, among others, Steve Savage, we sent it to... Steve Savage. And Steve wields his power like a sword--or a knife in the back. See last entry. Anyway, as the Senior Elections Officer, he interpreted the widely-interpretable election rules such that we very nearly got disqualified for handing out fliers for multiple candidates simultaneously (an action which was interpreted as 'allowed' by these very same rules in yesterday's election). We didn't get disqualified, though, and of the 11 allies, 10 of us won our positions.
In our first meeting, we had a basic introduction to the SRC, which amounted to, more or less, "Welcome to the SRC". This was as far as they ever went for the next six months. We received no training, no support. Meanwhile, the meetings (which had previously been held in the Students' Union), were in a different location every time, because some foresightless moron had decided that having SRC meetings in halls--a different one for each fortnightly meeting!--would encourage more 'ordinary students' to attend. In fact, all we did was take over a hall's common room for an evening. Meeting attendance dwindled, especially among those most-recently elected members.** No one knew what they were supposed to be doing, or how to do the things they wanted to do, to be effective in their positions.
In January, when we were asked to write reports of our activities for the AGM in March, several of the newer SRC members declined to send in reports at all. I can't say I blame them--my own was little more than a rant over lack of training. A training session was finally scheduled for 16 February. Perhaps because many of the others already felt so alienated by this point, only four of us even showed up. But it was just as well, since "training" turned out to be nothing more than an explanation of bureaucratic structure followed by a justification of the budget. (I would've asked for more, such as 'how to write a motion', but they'd already used up our allotted time, and I had a bus to catch.) So we remained ineffective.
It was relatively easy, therefore, for the senior members of the SRC to push through a motion a few weeks ago, cutting 15 'redundant' positions from the SRC. I supported the paring down of the SRC, but I found the justification for this, and even more, the way it was pushed through, incredibly disquieting. First, the justification: it was reasoned that having fewer positions available at each election would increase competition for each position, which was somehow understood to make the body 'more democratic'. By what conception of 'democracy', I don't know, but that was their reasoning. Second, more important, the way it was passed: our meeting started about 2 hours later than usual, because we'd spent the early evening in the annual joint meeting of the SRC, SSC and University Officials, then had our photos taken. We had a set time we had to leave the building, which left us with about an hour for what is usually a two-hour meeting, and with four motions to discuss instead of the usual one or two, since so few people had attended the previous meeting that we hadn't had quorum. The motion was rushed through at the end, with some making statements to the effect that it didn't actually matter what the SRC decided, since the decision had already been made by the Executive Board (this was from James Shield, who was elected yesterday to be next year's DoR). It was put to a vote before it had had anything like enough discussion (we all just want to go home!), with dozens of tired hands drowning out dissent.
Our last effort was at the AGM. The Lower Rents Now Coalition (which, though made up almost entirely of the Radical Left, and about 90% overlap with the Socialists, has no particular political affiliation) had been advertising to try to get people to attend the AGM to try to push the Students' Association to take a stronger and more radical stand on accommodation issues. As previously mentioned, the date, time, and venue had all been changed at the last minute, so we had to step up advertising right before it. Hence the banner that James, a founder and key organiser of the LRNC, had been hanging out the window at the AGM. And of course, he--who has a history of disagreement with Steve Savage, and who stepped up the tension at the AGM by putting forward a motion to censure the VP, Keith Brown, for stating that "This University is not accountable to its students" (a motion that was scuppered because, as we might have found out had we had even a modicum of training or support, all motions are meant to be proposed 48 hours in advance)--he was disciplined for it, while another person, who was with him and doing exactly the same thing, heard nothing about it then or since.
By this point it had become abundantly clear that the only way we were going to effect any kind of change in the Students' Association was to hold the positions of real power. Fortunately for the mythical 'us', Harry was already intending to run for DoR, and James for Accommodation Officer in the March elections, which are the bigger and more important of the two election diets (though these have just been reformed into one, in the same position-cutting motion described above). Spurred on by disempowerment, several others put in nominations for other positions. We all lost.*** Not all of us, technically--some were uncontested--but everyone running for a position with an opponent lost to that person.
To be honest, although I'm disappointed for my friends' losses, in my own case I'm a little relieved. I was doubtful that, even given sweeping victories in positions of Real PowerTM, we'd actually be able to change things for the better. To have that genuinely democratic, horizontally-empowering Students' Association we're all yearning for. I don't think there's anything for us in working within The System, because The System always has more ways of parrying, turning away, and outright ignoring attempts to change it from within. And I'm not sure that I could deal with that kind of frustration for a whole 'nother year. Fuck 'em.
*There is no 'us'. This may have been part of the problem. Whether because there wasn't, really, or because there was a perception that there was, I'm not sure, but I'm certain that the disconnect between notions of 'solidarity' and actual unity played a big role in 'our' eventual breakdown.
**Dwindled generally, that is, not just among "us". Disaffection, disempowerment and disillusionment were wide-spread.
***Kinda makes the cheesy movie-reference of my last entry's title seem oddly prescient, eh? Fuck. At least no one's been shot (political assassinations aside).
In our first meeting, we had a basic introduction to the SRC, which amounted to, more or less, "Welcome to the SRC". This was as far as they ever went for the next six months. We received no training, no support. Meanwhile, the meetings (which had previously been held in the Students' Union), were in a different location every time, because some foresightless moron had decided that having SRC meetings in halls--a different one for each fortnightly meeting!--would encourage more 'ordinary students' to attend. In fact, all we did was take over a hall's common room for an evening. Meeting attendance dwindled, especially among those most-recently elected members.** No one knew what they were supposed to be doing, or how to do the things they wanted to do, to be effective in their positions.
In January, when we were asked to write reports of our activities for the AGM in March, several of the newer SRC members declined to send in reports at all. I can't say I blame them--my own was little more than a rant over lack of training. A training session was finally scheduled for 16 February. Perhaps because many of the others already felt so alienated by this point, only four of us even showed up. But it was just as well, since "training" turned out to be nothing more than an explanation of bureaucratic structure followed by a justification of the budget. (I would've asked for more, such as 'how to write a motion', but they'd already used up our allotted time, and I had a bus to catch.) So we remained ineffective.
It was relatively easy, therefore, for the senior members of the SRC to push through a motion a few weeks ago, cutting 15 'redundant' positions from the SRC. I supported the paring down of the SRC, but I found the justification for this, and even more, the way it was pushed through, incredibly disquieting. First, the justification: it was reasoned that having fewer positions available at each election would increase competition for each position, which was somehow understood to make the body 'more democratic'. By what conception of 'democracy', I don't know, but that was their reasoning. Second, more important, the way it was passed: our meeting started about 2 hours later than usual, because we'd spent the early evening in the annual joint meeting of the SRC, SSC and University Officials, then had our photos taken. We had a set time we had to leave the building, which left us with about an hour for what is usually a two-hour meeting, and with four motions to discuss instead of the usual one or two, since so few people had attended the previous meeting that we hadn't had quorum. The motion was rushed through at the end, with some making statements to the effect that it didn't actually matter what the SRC decided, since the decision had already been made by the Executive Board (this was from James Shield, who was elected yesterday to be next year's DoR). It was put to a vote before it had had anything like enough discussion (we all just want to go home!), with dozens of tired hands drowning out dissent.
Our last effort was at the AGM. The Lower Rents Now Coalition (which, though made up almost entirely of the Radical Left, and about 90% overlap with the Socialists, has no particular political affiliation) had been advertising to try to get people to attend the AGM to try to push the Students' Association to take a stronger and more radical stand on accommodation issues. As previously mentioned, the date, time, and venue had all been changed at the last minute, so we had to step up advertising right before it. Hence the banner that James, a founder and key organiser of the LRNC, had been hanging out the window at the AGM. And of course, he--who has a history of disagreement with Steve Savage, and who stepped up the tension at the AGM by putting forward a motion to censure the VP, Keith Brown, for stating that "This University is not accountable to its students" (a motion that was scuppered because, as we might have found out had we had even a modicum of training or support, all motions are meant to be proposed 48 hours in advance)--he was disciplined for it, while another person, who was with him and doing exactly the same thing, heard nothing about it then or since.
By this point it had become abundantly clear that the only way we were going to effect any kind of change in the Students' Association was to hold the positions of real power. Fortunately for the mythical 'us', Harry was already intending to run for DoR, and James for Accommodation Officer in the March elections, which are the bigger and more important of the two election diets (though these have just been reformed into one, in the same position-cutting motion described above). Spurred on by disempowerment, several others put in nominations for other positions. We all lost.*** Not all of us, technically--some were uncontested--but everyone running for a position with an opponent lost to that person.
To be honest, although I'm disappointed for my friends' losses, in my own case I'm a little relieved. I was doubtful that, even given sweeping victories in positions of Real PowerTM, we'd actually be able to change things for the better. To have that genuinely democratic, horizontally-empowering Students' Association we're all yearning for. I don't think there's anything for us in working within The System, because The System always has more ways of parrying, turning away, and outright ignoring attempts to change it from within. And I'm not sure that I could deal with that kind of frustration for a whole 'nother year. Fuck 'em.
*There is no 'us'. This may have been part of the problem. Whether because there wasn't, really, or because there was a perception that there was, I'm not sure, but I'm certain that the disconnect between notions of 'solidarity' and actual unity played a big role in 'our' eventual breakdown.
**Dwindled generally, that is, not just among "us". Disaffection, disempowerment and disillusionment were wide-spread.
***Kinda makes the cheesy movie-reference of my last entry's title seem oddly prescient, eh? Fuck. At least no one's been shot (political assassinations aside).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-15 06:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-16 10:01 pm (UTC)Corinne suggested sending it to The Saint. Not sure I'd do that, though, since (1) they are already in the habit of mis-representing me and my views; (2) I think some of it could possibly be construed as libel. I mean, it's all true, at least in a metaphorical sense, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable putting things like "Steve wields his power like a sword--or a knife in the back" into actual print.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-16 05:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-16 09:42 pm (UTC)