Two weeks ago, the Students’ Society held its annual General Assembly. The whole thing was depressing. I went at precisely the time it was to begin, and the first thing that struck me was the line.
Remember the GA last semester? If you weren’t there at least an hour early, you weren’t getting in. A motion criticizing Israel was on the agenda, and both sides of the perennial debate had come out in full force. The room was packed beyond capacity. Everyone left after the Israel debate, so only a little more than 100 people voted on free speech for pro-life students on campus. Depressing, I know.
At this semester’s GA, the line barely had 10 people in it. Entering the room, there were around 20. Over the course of the entire GA, we hovered in and out of a measly quorum (100 people) that we could barely maintain.
The GA makes a mockery of the democratic process. A fundamental principle of democracy is consent of the governed: laws should reflect the consent of those who are ruled by them. At the GA this year, 100 unelected people dictated policy to the 21,000 students that form SSMU. Think about that for a moment. As one of those attending, I represented 210 of my fellow students. All I did to earn that right was to walk through the door.
The room that hosts the GA holds, at most, a little over 500 people. But what if 2000 people lined up outside the door? SSMU would inevitably have to turn many away. The result would be damning: one person’s vote would be denied because they didn’t get there in time.
Don’t take this as an indictment of direct democracy. On the contrary, the referendum process offers a chance to vote on matters of student concern. It is the highest fulfillment of the principle of consent of the governed.
The GA is not a direct democracy. The restrictions of occupying a physical space means that the GA is limited in its ability to represent students. Past years have shown us that special interest groups can exploit the GA process for their own ends. A controversial motion, like the Israel motion last semester, can fill a GA quickly.
But instead of being a forum for debate, GAs are about stacking the cards. If my group can bring more of our people, we will win, and you will lose. Instead of competing to convince students on the basis of solid arguments, GAs are competitions to fill the room. Does that sound like democracy to you?
The physical limitations of the GA are simply impossible to overcome. They will never carry the weight and legitimacy of referendums. They need to go.
SSMU President Zach Newburgh faced several questions about attendance at the General Assembly this year. In response, he revealed his intention to strike a committee on reforming the GA process. This is a positive first step, and its final goal should be unequivocal: the end of the GA.
In fact, the president, a member of the executive, or one of our elected councillors should table a motion calling for the discontinuation of the SSMU General Assembly. I just hope one of them has the courage to do it.
