The Failure of Central Student Government: Part III

The Diag (via CCI)

In this third and final installment in my series “The Failure of Central Student Government,” I will raise counterpoints to the solution I proposed in my second post, which was that CSG be removed and replaced with a deliberative direct democracy system. This solution was a response to the democratic failure of misrepresentation by CSG, which I outlined in my initial post. I will then attempt to rebut these counterpoints. I will also examine what I think the short-term and long-term effects of my solutions will be. I will finish with a brief summary of my series, “The Failure of Central Student Government.”

One major objection to the proposal that Central Student Government be removed and replaced with a deliberative direct democracy system is that the resulting direct democracy would be too large and dysfunctional. This objection comes primarily from two factors: the large number of students who make up the deliberative body and the lack of time students have to participate. Some may think that roughly 40,000 students participating in direct democracy is just too many people to be effective, which may result in lots of noise but no effective outcomes. Others, like Hassan has pointed out, think students don’t have the time to deliberate and legislate, which results in them not participating at all. Sindhu, the former inclusion commission member who also appeared in my first post, mentioned that she also didn’t think student participation would be high in a direct democracy.

Political Apathy Cartoon (via Huffington Post)

When asked what she thought about my solution, Sindhu responded, “I don’t think a direct democracy would strengthen minority voices on campus. Minorities are called minorities for a reason. There are fewer numbers of students that are not white, heterosexual, and able bodied, therefore if there was a direct democracy system, even if it was perfect and everyone voted, majorities would be represented more just because there are more of them.”

I definitely see where these concerns are coming from, and how they could be troubling for my solution. Rousseau addresses this issue of legislative size in “On Social Contract,” where he states that his model could only work in relatively small places like Corsica. In 1768, 6 years after Rousseau published, the population of Corsica was ~180,000, which is 140,000 more than the current student population. So, I think the numbers will definitely allow this to function, especially with the addition of the Internet to allow everyone to meet in the same (digital) space.

Regarding lack of participation and students being busy, I addressed this somewhat in my initial post. Pitkin argued that when democracy is localized, citizens take more interests in and participate more in democracy because they see the effects of the local government in their everyday lives, unlike federal government level action. I think this easily translates to university government. When the citizens see the actions of their school nearly everyday, they want to participate, and a direct democracy gives them the opportunity to do so. I will concede that we students are very busy, but I think we would make time to have a direct say in the government we interact with everyday, even if it's just a few minutes online every night weighing in on issues.

In the short term, my proposal may be hard to implement. When implemented, students would need to be heavily educated on how the system works, the benefits of direct democracy, and the time commitment. This could be done at student orientation and via email for current students. In the long run, I think all issues of implementation would shake out and the will of students would ultimately be reflected in student government actions.

In summary, the current CSG system fails in its duty to represent the entire student body. Specifically, it fails to represent the voices of minority students on campus. Abolishing CSG and replacing it with a deliberative direct democracy can overcome this failure, though. With a direct democracy, all student voices would be heard, and all would have a say in the system that governs them.