data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2c9d1/2c9d127d2a31d951a1a2b2ee70b8fbb225a9a1f4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d72cc/d72cc6ff59844b61531f86777554dbe85bbceeed" alt="Education Cuts. A poster protesting at government spending cuts in education, March 1977."
Recently, I wrote an article on the Students’ Union Activities Zone voting to ban fossil fuel sponsorships within clubs and societies. The process of writing it revealed to me that there is a democratic crisis within the Students’ Union.
I attended this Zone Meeting, having no previous knowledge of its existence nor its role within the Union. I walked into a room of 20 or so people (almost half of whom were Cheese Grater journalists, with a notable absence of any other student media). Indeed, a vast majority of those elected to represent our interests couldn’t even be bothered to turn up in person at the Zone Meeting. At the end of the meeting, I found myself asking the question: why is nobody in our 50,000-strong university interested in the decision-making of our student body?
The Union claims that policy zones are open to all students, yet one would have to go digging through their website, the modern-day equivalent of Daedalus’ Labyrinth, to even know these meetings exist. Activities and Engagement Officer Ana Boikova chairs the Activities Zone, yet her weekly newsletters fail to inform students of the meeting’s existence or outcomes. It’s no wonder why no one cares when the Union doesn’t actively make the effort to inform students that these platforms exist.
The Union website states that policy zones “consist of a group of students who meet regularly and discuss student issues and ideas on related topics.” These forums regularly vote on policies that can have a significant impact on student life at UCL. For example, the Fossil Fuel sponsorships policy is potentially going to impact 11 societies. However, a lack of information and interest in these zones meant that only three members of the engineering society turned up to argue their case. This lack of engagement from students is damaging the quality of discussion and the level of scrutiny provided to the executive.
This begs the question, if no one turns up, do these meetings matter? Well… they don’t. All policies passed in the policy zones must then be ratified by the almighty Union Executive, attended by the six sabbs and a handful of student officers. Effectively, if the wider student representatives are in favour of a policy, but the officers are not, then the officers hold the ability to block any attempts to change the status quo.
This sounds rather familiar to the concept of an ‘elective dictatorship’, a term coined by Lord Hailsham in 1976 referring to the British Parliamentary system in which the government holds all the power and can pass virtually any bill. The Students’ Union is much like the Westminster system, where all power is concentrated within the executive and the vast majority of our representatives serve as a mere formality to the system.
But this is where the comparisons end; at the very least the British Government passes policy, whereas our Union fails to even vote on policy. We recently reported at the last Executive meeting that after two hours of debating, none of the policy proposals passed at policy zones were able to be voted on by the officers. This is a clear demonstration of the democratic deadlock that the Union finds itself in.
The only thing preventing the Union from being a full-on dictatorship is the 5% or so of the student population that bother to turn up at the sabb elections. Only 2,624 students turned out to vote to elect our current Union President, Goksu Danaci. It is an absolute sham that these people can claim that they represent the interests of the students at large when they receive such appalling mandates.
These six sabbatical officers are at the very forefront of student voice at UCL, part-funded by our university fees and paid £30,000 a year each to do so. The Union describes their role as being “to improve life at UCL for all students” going on to say that they will “have the opportunity to drive big changes at UCL”. Yet the vast majority of students wouldn’t have a clue who they are or what they do, let alone identify any of these changes they have enacted.
I recognise that this is a critical view of the Union, but if we do not address the problems that persist within our student democracy, then how will the situation improve? A healthy student democracy requires a student body that is willing to engage, but also an Executive that is willing to listen and act.
As we are coming up to the 2025 Leadership Race, questions need to be asked of the existing leadership, and those vying for control next year. To the current sabbs, how will you engage with the student population to drive interest in the upcoming elections?
And to the candidates running for election this year, how will you take us out of this dreary situation where those at the very top do little more than maintain the status quo?