McGill TribuneA bit earlier than usual this year, the General Assembly is already making waves on campus. A proposal to create a referendum question seeking to abolish the GA and replace it with two (bi-)Annual General Meetings and so-called “private members’ bills” has spurred several Facebook groups and a spirited back and forth among councillors, executives, and students. The proposed AGMs would provide a forum for debate on referendum questions as well as performing some legally required duties, while the private members’ bills would enable any student to get a motion with 50 signatures considered by Council. It is perhaps unsurprising for the Tribune to advocate strongly that councillors adopt this motion, given our oft-expressed interest in abolishing the GA. But it’s addressing some of the concerns regarding this new proposal.
“Consultation” concerns
One common concern pertains to the degree of consultation undertaken before the motion was submitted to Council. Some argue that the Steering Committee was supposed to look at several options for reforming the GA, rather than simply approve a motion to submit its abolition to referendum. There could have been focus groups, town halls, surveys, and the involvement of more councillors, rather than what many consider to be the brainchild of a handful of self-selected people.
“Consultation” has been a popular word recently. But in this case it feels like a distraction rather than a legitimate concern. Students’ Society President Zach Newburgh was interested enough in consultation to call for committee members to review the GA, but he received only one volunteer in response. Opponents said he could have tried harder, but this seems more like a dispute about personal interpretations of how much consultation is enough: a question of degree rather than principle.
It’s also curious to complain of a lack of consultation on a motion being put forward to Council, which is, in fact, a consultative body. Students elected by their peers will have the opportunity to debate, amend, and vote on the motion before it proceeds to referendum. All students can speak at Council and have the right to petition their councillors to vote in a certain way. Should Council allow this motion to go to referendum, every student will have the opportunity to either reject or accept it. Consultation before action makes sense. But the main complaint seems to be that there was not enough consultation before, well, consultation.
Finally, the vast majority of students have shown a consistent unwillingness to engage in consultative mechanisms such as town halls. Students’ opinions should be sought but cannot be forced into existence. All this talk of “consultation” and “process” is a distraction from the real debate, which should be about the merits of the motion itself.
The GA is not democratic
Opponents of the resolution are also concerned that eliminating the GA is tantamount to scrapping a rare example of direct democracy at McGill. They see the GA as the only forum on campus in which all students can amend, debate, and vote on motions; that this unique opportunity for face-to-face interaction is not adequately replaced in the new proposal; and that therefore the GA, however flawed, shouldn’t be abandoned.
Any contentions that the new motion seeks to erase direct democracy at McGill must be framed against a crucial fact: the GA as it exists is fundamentally undemocratic. Students with scheduling conflicts cannot attend and thus cannot vote. If the room gets filled to capacity, students who cannot get in do not get to vote. The GA violates the democratic principles both of one-person-one-vote and the right to a secret ballot (without the majority’s assent). Reform, too, seems impossible. It would be difficult to advertise more than past SSMU executives have. SSMU could rent a larger room, but this requires a substantial investment for something that is normally under-attended. The process could be changed—but no replacement could guarantee more civility or eliminate a learning curve. The ancient Greeks knew well that when a community passes a certain size, direct, interpersonal democracy becomes impossible. The ideals of the GA are inspiring, but they may be more easily achieved with the abolition of the GA rather than with its stubborn preservation.
The proposal on the table would preserve debate while reserving voting for the referendum process more traditionally associated with direct democracy, and which provides time and privacy for any student to vote in comfort. The proposed AGMs will still provide a forum for interested students to discuss referendum questions, but hopefully eliminate the highly contentious and polarized situations we’ve seen in the last two years. While the proposed AGMs do not allow students to amend motions, this is a price we are willing to pay for a clearer, easier, and more democratic system.
Some students also have concerns about an increased reliance on Council. The new proposal would put more power in the hands of councillors, elected it’s true, but often acclaimed or voted in based on popularity. Yet for all its flaws, council is voted in through elections accessible to all students and its actions are more representative of those students than those of a self-appointed mob accountable to nobody.
Ask the students directly
A vote for this motion is not a permanent commitment to anything except making tangible change. Change in any direction has been elusive for several years and should not be delayed again. The arguments regarding consultation are analogous to Republicans claiming they did not like Obama’s health care plan because of the voting process. And let’s not forget the most important point, one that all councillors concerned about democracy and consultation should be able to agree on:
If this entire debate is about how to make SSMU operations more democratic, this question should go to referendum. There is surely no better way to consult with students than to ask their opinions directly, in a referendum.
