Review of Union democracy launched

The Students’ Union is initiating a major overhaul of its democratic systems. In its first meeting of term on 24 October, the Union Council unanimously passed the ‘Democracy Review’. In the words of its proposer, SU Democracy Officer Chris Luck, the policy is “a strategic look at all our democratic processes and systems to make sure that they are fit for purpose and relevant in the 21st century.”

The impetus for the Democracy Review came partly from the annual Big 5 Survey conducted by the SU. While the 2011 results were generally positive – 82 per cent of students said that the SU was an important part of their time at Warwick – the sections of the Survey relating to democracy were “quite shocking”, according to Luck. It revealed that 85 per cent of students haven’t attended an SU democratic meeting, 73 per cent couldn’t name an SU policy, and 58 per cent didn’t know how to stand for election.

When questioned about Union democracy, Rowan Sullivan, a second-year Comparative American Studies student, said: “Well, I haven’t heard about these democratic processes, so I guess in that sense it’s not really very democratic.”

As a result of the Democracy Review being passed, a ‘working group’, consisting of seven currently elected members of the SU, has been assembled to tackle the problem of low student participation in the Union. Luck himself heads the group, but emphasises that “it’s important that this Democracy Review comes from all students. It wouldn’t be right if it’s just me changing things.”

The working group is still in its early days and concrete plans have yet to emerge. However, the main focus will be on making SU democracy more “simple, accessible and relevant”. This is Luck’s self-described ‘mantra’ for the Democracy Review.

“People say that democracy is too bureaucratic and that we use too many fancy words for things,” he said. “It should be accessible to all members of the Union – that’s what it’s all about.”

Dymphna Murphy, a second-year Politics and International Studies student, commented that “very few people know what goes on democratically in the Union.”

A change in the demographic make-up of the student body has been suggested as one factor affecting turnout. “We can look to the change in the social structure,” said James Entwistle, a third-year Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) student with two years experience on the Union Council. “Students are richer nowadays and more diverse.”

For those students sceptical of the benefits of participation in their Union, Erin Davies, Undergraduate Social Sciences Faculty Representative and a member of Luck’s working group, pointed to this year’s transformation of the Atrium: “Tons of students told us they wanted more seating in the atrium and that it was a dull space, and now it’s a riot of colour with our fabulous Ikea furniture.”

Whether the Democracy Review will succeed, only time will tell.