SU democracy: the only way is ethics?

Warwick Students’ Union General Meetings can be called in response to a petition by students, by the Union President, or can be recommended by Union Council. For a General Meeting to take place, quorum (a presence of over 1% of the student body) must be met. Any issue can be brought up for debate by students, are proposed in advance and are then discussed and voted on by those present.

The Union has faced criticism lately as a result of low voter turnout and the failure to meet quorum at the 30 January meeting. In the event of a failure to meet quorum, the meeting is cancelled and then rescheduled. Anyone who attends the rescheduled meeting becomes the quorum figure.

Another contentious factor comes in when the Union is prompted by members of the student body to make ethical decisions, as was the case with the infamous Ban Bacardi motion, reaffirmed by a vote of 70 to 45 at the last General Meeting. Whilst some contend that the General Meetings should restrict their debates to issues directly affecting the student body, others would say that what matters to students should matter to the Union, regardless of whether it is a moral question or not.

_Considering the low attendance at General Meetings, should the Students’ Union be able to make ethical decisions?_

**Richard:** I went along to a Students’ Union General Meeting the other day; I’m really pleased that our union is politically active enough to take a stance on so many important issues.

**Akash:** Actually Richard, I disagree. I think it’s ridiculous that the Union feels empowered to take stances on political issues that have a variety of viewpoints and dimensions, particularly when those aspects of the issues aren’t voted on or properly discussed by the members.

**R:** But anybody can come to the General Meetings to vote on the issues discussed. Surely the system is open and democratic enough to make sure that the resolutions passed represent the views of the student population?

**A: ** The problem isn’t that people can turn up to vote on contentious issues like Bacardi or Eden Springs, but that the Students’ Union doesn’t have the right to take a moral position on things like sponsorship or ethical companies. To begin with, these issues are composed of a great number of complex ideas and values that vary widely from student to student and, furthermore, relate to very individual beliefs. It isn’t the Union’s place to supersede the student body and publish its own take.

**R:** Surely the Union’s role is to make sure that its students are happy at the university. For example, if people don’t feel able to purchase rum from SU outlets on campus, surely they have a right to take those feelings to a democratic body, and have the student population vote on whether their concerns are justified?

At the end of the day, the Students’ Union is a collection of individuals, and individuals are entitled to moral views, so why shouldn’t their union?

**A:** Individual views on these issues manifest in a particular way, i.e. refusing to purchase a certain brand of rum. At the point at which the Union decides that a small body of the student population’s views should come to dominate the entire campus, it undermines the values and views of every student who has no problem with Bacardi. It’s fundamentally the tyranny of the majority, except that in this case, it’s almost certainly tyranny of a politically active minority.

**R:** Even if it is a small number of people, they’re people who care about the issues. When it comes to aggregating interests, ignoring those who don’t care whether they drink ‘moral rum’ or ‘morally dubious rum’ seems quite sensible to me.
Moreover, they get these issues right. The companies that we aim to shut out of campus do unethical things which no sensibly minded person should condone. If your problem is simply the lack of attendance at AGMs, that’s a problem that can be solved by things like online voting, and all the things we’re about to see in the DDO manifestos.

**A:** The problem isn’t a lack of voting, it’s the expectation that the Union should be an activist body putting forth political views that will impact everyone on campus. Unless, that is, every student has to take time out to oppose the Union. I firmly believe that a small Union is a good Union and it should seek to serve the interests of all students, sticking to issues that everyone cares about. As soon as the Union bans Bacardi, it sends a message to everyone that the whole of the University of Warwick has taken a stance on the issue, which simply isn’t the case.

**R: **Those interested in our Union being a safe space for students have a far more powerful voice when they are able to speak not only for themselves, but the whole of the Warwick student body. Which is basically who they are speaking for, even if they’re the only ones who take an interest in their Union. See the SU support of the Alternative White Paper: these things are necessary to protect the interests of our students. And if the rest of the student body doesn’t want this protection, they do still have the chance to oppose it by voting on the issue!

**A: ** But we need to clarify the role of the Union – it isn’t (or shouldn’t be) to go out on a limb for the views of a small minority of students. Its role is to provide services and facilities that the entire body require. The fact that people are too busy or not motivated enough to attend General Meetings doesn’t mean that the Union has a mandate to take their absence as consent for any radical policies it wants to put forward. Fundamentally, a university is composed of a number of individuals who require assistance from the Union – this doesn’t entail wide-sweeping, normative moral judgements.

**R: ** I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. But given Warwick SU policy isn’t going to disappear overnight, people should stop grumbling and come and vote.