McGill Tribune

Last week’s SSMU General Assembly (GA) once again failed to reach quorum for the majority of its motions. As the SSMU executives are only compelled to act on those that did—sadly consisting of just the distinctly tepid duo of motions concerning the selection of the Financial Auditor, and one in support of the student café—the GA was effectively relegated to a consultative body, endowed with little power to effect any actual change.

This was not an unexpected result. The Tribune has been consistently calling for the GA to undergo substantial reforms. Without it, the GAs will continue to be unproductive. Last week’s Winter meeting is just another reason why the GA in its current form is a total embarrassment to everyone involved, and a source of exasperation to those who are not. 

Firstly, the GA as an institution suffers chronically from a fatal paradox: it is supposedly the democratic representation of the student body in SSMU’s affairs, and yet only a fraction of students are present, and even fewer are able to get their voice heard, let alone listened to. The result is an unrepresentative representative body. This is partly due to the limits of space, and partly due to the limited student desire to attend. A maximum of 500 people can fit in the hall, a number that is rarely even reached and is only a small fraction of 22,000 SSMU members. Considering the quorum for most proposals lies at only 100, there is the possiblity that an even smaller fraction of 0.6 per cent of the student body can shape SSMU legislation on behalf of the rest. This is plainly not fair for those whose opinions are not represented because they are unable to attend, possibly for reasons of health, part-time jobs, researching, and homework. It is understandable that students have other uses for their evening apart from debating whether Karl Marx deserves a portrait in the student lounge.

The GA lends itself to a tyranny of a vocal and radical minority, one that can often be at loggerheads with the general opinion on campus. We question the legitimacy of those who dictate policy simply by virtue of showing up. No one elected them to vote on behalf of their absent fellow students. Therefore GA votes are not representative. 

The absurdity of the GA is further compounded by the disingenuous and cynical attitude it encourages: the best way to exercise your right to vote at the GA is to sit through the meeting, fool your opponents into thinking quorum has been reached, and then obstinately leave just as the vote is being counted for motions you don’t agree with, to deprive the GA of its power.

Last week’s GA also conformed to a recurring theme of recent GAs: the motions themselves were problematic. Some focussed on external issues that lay beyond SSMU’s purview (like the Federal government’s crime bill, C-10), while others concentrating on internal issues were either about divisive-yet-vague complaints, or concerned with the tediously practical issues which were coming into effect regardless of the GA’s endorsement.

The question is, what can be done to improve it? We offer three paths for how to resolve the GA: the path of expansion, the path of contraction, or the path of abolition.

The path of expansion would entail moving the GA online. As James Gilman, one of our in-house columnists, pointed out last week, a system of online voting would allow more people to be able to vote, and would create a more transparent GA. This expansion of the electorate can only be done well if coupled with better publicity. The GAs could be live-streamed online, accompanied by a live-stream of the minutes so that people around the university can not only get a grasp of what is being said, but so that they can also comment on the minutes online. That way, people who are unable to be there in person can still have their say in some form. 

The path of contraction would involve the GA ceding any pretension to being a representative body, allowing the GA to focus on being a centre for dialogue, active debate, and a consultative assembly for SSMU. If people still feel strongly about any particular issue that should be enacted by SSMU, they should launch a referendum for this purpose. If it genuinely is a good idea, a resounding referendum mandate is a much more credible litmus test for student opinion.

Finally, there always remains the path of abolition. We  respect the value of having a vibrant forum for debates over campus issues, but when most of these descend into a crudely partisan means for extreme groups of both sides of the political spectrum to push their own agenda  against the interest of the majority of the student body, then it is may be time to call a halt to proceedings and look for other ways to create a more legitimate, egalitarian, and representative form of debate.