But why’s the rum gone?

Something momentous – historical, even – happened last week. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of Warwick students realised for the first time that the Union is a democratic organisation. A democratic organisation, that is, with an elected council to represent its students, and the power to make decisions about the future of the SU.

It is ironic, and a little sad, that it took a blanket ban on a brand of mediocre rum to alert so many that the Council exists, and that it does occasionally make big calls on this sort of thing. Indeed, the move to ban Bacardi ought to be a relatively innocuous one. Last Monday’s Council meeting also produced two other politically charged decisions: the creation of a new role to fight Government cuts, and an amendment to ensure that all Union staff receive a living wage of £7.20 per hour, which could see prices of food and drink in Union outlets go up.

On the face of it, then, the uproar caused by what is quickly becoming known as ‘Bacardi-gate’ is puzzling. It does, however, say a lot about the health of Union democracy. Whether or not Bacardi’s ethical record is dubious enough – as a majority of the council suggested – to justify a blanket ban on its sale is up for debate.

But in reality, this is a side issue. The real issue seems instead to be whether or not the Council has the right to make decisions like this on an ethical basis in the first place. Indeed, there are those who would prefer for students to vote with their wallets on issues such as these. If the morality of their rum was an issue of great importance to students, then surely there would be no demand for Bacardi in the first place. The popularity of this view is a depressing indicator of the Council’s lack of popular legitimacy. To many, the decision on Bacardi is an unwelcome change forced through by a body that some haven’t even heard of, let alone voted for. The real area of concern, then, must not be whether or not the Council’s decision on the basis of the evidence available was the correct one; rather, it must be whether or not such an organisation has the muscle, and indeed the right, to pursue a morally-tinged policy.

The shock with which this ostensibly minor decision has been greeted is an ominous indicator of the limp nature of the democracy that ought to be at the heart of our organisation. How can it be that ordinary students turn their noses up at the best laid plans of their elected representatives? The answer to that question is actually a rather simple one. The fact is that the Council is elected by a very small minority of the student population. To most, it is an abstraction – a forum for only the very keenest and most ambitious of student politicians. That is to say that despite its best intentions, the council has become an organisation for the few, not the many. No wonder it struggles for real clout.

If there is a silver lining to the dark grey cloud looming over the future of student participation, it’s that the furore over Bacardi proves that student opinion is still important. It is better to have a fierce debate than none at all.

But the Union must learn its lesson. If the Council is to continue to make big decisions on ethical grounds, it must seriously raise its profile. Nobody expects a return to the days of packed meetings full of angry students. No-one believes that we’ll ever return to the ‘Red Warwick’ student politics of the 60s. We ask only for a representative structure whose movements and methods are understood, accessible not only to those who populate the execs of Warwick’s political societies, but also to those who aren’t interested in politicking and just care for their Union.

The _Boar_ acknowledges that this is easier said than done. It would be unfair to blame the Council entirely for the low participation in campus democracy. Political apathy is hardly unique to this university. Yet the fact that many students can’t explain what the Council does, or who represents them, is telling.

Next Tuesday will see a rare Union General Meeting. Presumably Bacardi-gate will be raised. It is a sign of the times, however, that our immediate concern is not how we might approach this challenge, but whether or not the quorum – the 201 students that make up the 1 per cent of the population which must be in attendance for the GM to happen – will be met at all.