Is there a place for “U” within the SU? | Des Gruntled

Des Gruntled questions the motives and roles of those involved in politics.

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” (Winston Churchill). Last November, the Student Council voted to take a stance on the contentious issue of the availability of abortion services in Ireland. Bearing in mind that (a) it was a significant issue with repercussions lasting for at least a year and (b) the result would “represent the collective decision of a large body of students”, one would presume that the wider multitude of UCC students would have been consulted directly by means of a campus-wide vote. They weren’t. Fast-forward a few months to last week and another important decision. Again:(a) it is a significant issue with repercussions lasting at least a year(b) the result would “represent the collective decision of a large body of students”but this time, curiously, the wider student body are being consulted directly. Where does one draw the line at democracy?  … But more importantly, who’s holding the eraser? To be clear, I don’t want to re-open the issue of “hard cases make bad law”, or the danger of snap reactions to tragic circumstances. (We are all aware of the circumstances surrounding the bank guarantee scheme and how difficult it is to unturn a decision once made).  My own personal view is that it was appropriate to take a stance on last November’s issue, but my concern relates to the ‘democratic’ qualities of its implementation. It seems that the democratic will of the people can be broken down into bigger (individual votes) or smaller (class-majority) components depending on which set of numbers happens to be more convenient to achieving one’s agenda. What surprises me is not the fact that the motion succeeded (as I’ve said before), but that there was a volume of support for this ‘narrowed focus’ among (i) the incumbents who sought your votes in last year’s SU elections and (ii) many of the candidates who recently sought your votes this year for the same jobs. If the last batch and the new batch share the same optional respect for the views of the wider student populace, is there really any changing of the guard, or just more of the same? Manifestoes tend to contain one or more of the following:(a) A list of promises that will never form part of their duties under their employment contract (because making their pay contingent on actually keeping their promises would be ridiculous --- it’s not as if we placed reliance on their mis-representations in casting our vote)(b) Drone on about the candidate’s experience / expertise in particular areas (in which they had a vested interest to succeed anyway), but might not necessarily carry the same passion and verve to other causes, such as yours. It’s particularly worrying where previous experience is clustered in particular areas, as it’s a clue as to where they will direct the majority of their attention (and influence) in the forthcoming year.(c) Lots of flashy images and catchy slogans acting as a smokescreen to avoid being impaled on the barbed hook of “what is your greatest weakness?”, a question that is commonplace in any other job interview… which after all is what an election is. To be clear, I’m not saying that you wasted your vote last week; just don’t expect much of a change. The reason those voices all sound so alike is because they spend so much time in each other’s company.  It’s hard to get a breath of fresh air into public office when all the windows open out into other rooms of the same stuffy building. Equally, it’s hard to get a fresh perspective when your ‘social circle’ is unhealthily clustered close to that stale epicentre… and refreshingly nowhere near the WGB … but sshh don’t tell anybody or they might actually come down campaigning!!! It’ll be interesting to see whether this voice (which isn’t part of that golden circle) is heard within the last edition of the students’ voice, or if it will be silenced by the status quo. For now, I’ll leave you with some quotes from political masterminds of varying degrees: “Anybody who wants to be a politician shouldn’t be allowed to be one” (Gearoid Holland) “It is always the least appropriate men and women who are asked to represent their country abroad” (Jose Luis Borgia) “Do you have a plan?” … “Better. I have confidence!” (King Julien, king of the lemurs responding to one of his minions, “Popcorn Panic”, Penguins of Madagascar cartoon series) PS: feel free to attack my personality / motives instead of my argument. Those who opt for the first are effectively admitting publicly that they can’t do the second… That’s called an endorsement.