Following the walkout scandal at the last General Assembly, there was talk about the possibility of impeaching the Students' Society executives implicated in coordinating the walkout. Though it's refreshing to see discussion among students about holding our executives to account for their actions, what happened at the GA was just an exceptionally blatant example of the normal political culture at SSMU. Removing executives from office isn't going to change that culture. An impeachment campaign is sort of like an electoral campaign in reverse-it only replaces the individuals who claim to represent us, not the institutional context in which they do it. To democratize the political culture of SSMU, or any other institution, there must be more direct, grassroots participation by students who aren't full time politicians. Rather than perpetually trying to find the right person to represent us, we have to start representing ourselves.
There are a lot of problems with the way SSMU works. Some of them, such as a lack of student awareness or involvement, are perennially identified by wannabe student politicians during their election campaigns. Of course, once they've gotten themselves waist-deep in the insular, bureaucratic morass of the Society, their ability and inclination to actually work on changing the degree of student participation becomes very limited. Another important, though less frequently discussed, problem with the political culture at SSMU is the close affinity of interests that can easily develop between executives and the McGill administration. Clearly, becoming a SSMU executive isn't the top rung on anyone's career ladder, and many student politicians have plans to continue their ascent. A good relationship with the admin, and the recommendation letters and informal connections that go along with it, can be an important consideration for those who trying to make their way to the top.
We reject this hierarchical world of bureaucracy and corruption in which we're supposedly being "represented" by these student politicians. So how can it be changed? We definitely don't have all the answers, but we do believe that greater participation through General Assemblies is a step in the right direction. As former SSMU councillor Lazar Konforti pointed out before he graduated, the main difference between Council and a GA is that the "vain ambition to pad one's CV, the single most defining feature of the bullshit that is campus politics, doesn't rear its ugly head at GAs." The GA circumvents all the CV-padding, admin schmoozing, back-room dealing, "bullshit" of student politics, and allows for students to directly represent ourselves in discussion and decision-making on issues that we feel are important.
Be the first to comment on this story