I'm a big fan of democracy – not because it is a good option, but because it is less bad than anything else. It doesn't always always return the candidate that I would like, but the people are entitled to their say.
Left-wing student politicians are also big fans of democracy, but not because of the principles involved, but because it is the only way that they will ever get control. For many people in this position, democracy is a means to an end, not a highly held ideal. Once it no longer gives them power, it is not such a good idea any more.
When a friend of mine was at university many years ago, he was part of the local equivalent of the McGillicuddy Serious Party (or Monster Raving Loony Party, for anyone from the UK). He and his reactionary friends decided, for want of something better to do, to contest the University Union's elections that year and, to everyone's surprise (especially their own) they won.
This meant that the normal left-wing students groups missed out. Unhappy with this, they decided that another election would be held, so that a more suitable set of politicians could hold power. The legal basis for this was questionable at best, the reactionaries were only after the thrill of the chase, rather than the resulting power, so allowed another election to be held. This returned a more traditional set of student politicians.
The years of your late teens and early twenties are supposed to be a time of questioning authority, of conforming to different sets of rules and of striving for a higher set of ideals than everyone else. Yet groups of student politicians seem bent on conformity and, given the general political apathy of students everywhere, this isn't hard for them to achieve.
It has happened to me. When I was a student, I was one of a large number of students who decided that we didn't want any of the students who were standing as Science Representative on the Student Executive. And I wasn't alone, because No Confidence in Any of These Candidates was the highest polling option. Hurrah! One less layer of bureaucracy. The people had spoken. Except of couse, nothing was this simple. There was another election two weeks later, with exactly the same candidates. This is surely going directly against the will of the student body who have said that they This time one of them polled more than No Confidence, and the student wishes were thwarted once again.
This scenario is actually a little similar to that created by another left-wing organisation, the United Nations. They have decided that all small, remote sets of islands that are governed by other countries should be countries in their own right, and they have decided to have referenda every few months until these islets return a result that suits the UN, at which they will stop. The law of large numbers says that, eventually, the UN will win, at which point the referenda will stop, and the UN will proclaim a victory for democracy.
Don't get me wrong here. I am a supporter of democracy, because I think that it's the least bad way of ensuring that the people's voice is heard. When somebody gets elected, or some resolution is passed, I don't always agree with it, but I always accept it.
Left-wing student politicians, and the United Nations, support democracy, but not because of the principles involved. They support it because it is the best way for them to gain control and keep it. It was true when my friend was at university, many years ago now, it was true when I was at university, and it was true last month.
A Victoria University Students' Association meeting recently had a larger than usual number of people going along, because the right-wing decided to get a bit more involved in politics than it had previously been. ACT on Campus went along, and had enough people there to pass a motion that would support a law, currently before the New Zealand Parliament, that would stop student bodies being able to make membership compulsory for students at the university. That student groups can, under New Zealand law, force compulsory membership is astonishing, and surely breaks all sorts of principles about freedom of association. That student politicians actively support a rule that allows this says quite a lot about how big they think their fief would be if it were to get overturned.
However, back to the motion. The left-wingers didn't like this very much. They are more than happy when a student vote results in, for example, a motion to opposed the Student Loan Scheme or in favour of Hug A Dolphin Day, and then, like the United Nations, it is Democracy in Action. When it results in anything else, of course, that is an aberration, to be opposed at every turn.
Even the press got into it. A report in the Dominion Post spoke of a meeting being 'hijacked'. This is a bizarre claim. When I was a student, it was tough just to get a quorum. Even bribes of free food to starving students and outdoor meetings that got along anyone who found himself trapped inside the circle, and too apathetic to leave, were often not enough to get the 1% that was required. Attendance at meetings should be welcomed, and if people oppose your point of view, you have to accept that that is just democracy at work. I've got no doubt that if the International Socialists had passed a motion to the effect of The Students' Assocation Hates Rich People, democracy at work is what it would have been lauded as.
The story, of course, doesn't have a happy ending. The student leaders (for want of a better word) scuttled off to their lawyers at the first opportunity, and had the ruling overturned on some specious grounds. They know best, you see. And in the meantime, the will of the majority has been subverted – and not for the first time.