How is SU democracy changing this year?

Warwick Students’ Union (SU) introduced changes to the structure of the Union’s democratic system earlier this month.

The new structure brings three main changes:

1. The introduction of SU execs instead of Student Council representatives elected in Autumn.
2. A new student assembly will run like a jury service to collect randomly-chosen students to meet and give their opinions on SU policies.
3. A more ‘behind-the-scenes’ Student Council made up of sabbatical officers (elected SU representatives, e.g. SU president) and chairs of SU execs.

Each sabbatical officer, save the SU president Isaac Leigh, will lead a team of eight executive members, similar to a society exec, according to a blog post by democracy and development officer (DDO) Oliver Rice on the SU website. These new exec members are to be chosen through University-wide elections held in Autumn.

The system, which DDO Oliver Rice developed with his outgoing counterpart Robert Ankcorn, was put in place as a solution to the inefficiency of the old Student Council that stood in its place, according to Rice.

Rice commented that he hoped the new society-inspired system would encourage students to “act as well as talk”.

The SU will issue 48 invites, termed ‘Golden Tickets’, to randomly-chosen students to attend a meeting on a particular policy. The students who attend are to decide if the policy at hand is worth being discussed at an All Student Meeting.

Rice commented that the new Student Assembly would be conducted to ensure “substantial representation from [minorities and underrepresented] ‘Liberations’ groups, international students and postgrads”.

Rice told the Boar: “It was evident that the [old] Student Council simply wasn’t working.”

The Student Council’s new function would be to manage the “uncontroversial and technical” issues of the SU’s operation. It will include the seven sabbatical officers, the chair of each of the eight SU execs and the chair and deputy chair of the Student Council.

Some are doubtful about the effectiveness of the new proposed system.

What we really need is to engage ordinary students like us into the process” – Yulia Bashirova

“I think the new student exec system looks good on paper but I think what we really need is to engage ordinary students like us into the process,” says Yulia Bashirova, a second-year Economics undergraduate.

However, others are quite optimistic. Humaira Majid, a second-year Philosophy, Politics and Economics undergraduate, says that she “believe[s] the student assembly has the potential to increase the level of representation in the SU”.

Halimah Manan, a second-year undergraduate History and Sociology student commented: “After all of the full-time sabbatical officers elected are white men, it’s even more important to make the SU more accessible.

She continued: “Part of the problem of lack of nomination of people of colour and women to the sabb positions is a problem of lack of experience. Hopefully, this will solve that.”

Part of the problem of lack of nomination of people of colour and women to the sabb positions is a problem of lack of experience.” – Halimah Manan

When asked how the SU will try to promote diversity in the new structure, Rice cites the introduction of a Liberation and Diversity Exec.

The exec is to be made up of a representative of each of the following groups: students who define themselves as a woman, an ethnic minority, LGBTUA+, a disabled student, an EU, Non-EU, part-time or mature student.

Students who identify on their SU profile as a member of one or more of these categories will be allowed to vote for the representative of these groups for the Liberation and Diversity exec. For instance, self-defining as a woman on the SU website allows a student to vote for the exec’s women’s representative.