The Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) is broken. CUSA is corrupt. CUSA is not working for students.
I have heard these sentiments spoken by my peers over the past few weeks. Sometimes, it seems the most basic operation of our students’ association elicits a range of responses: ambivalence, incredulousness, anger, indifference, frustration—the list could go on. This undercurrent of dissatisfaction is quiet for most of the year, until it bubbles to the surface during election season. We would do well to listen when it does appear.
It is easy to dismiss these voices as unduly negative. We can tell ourselves that they are the rumblings of an unengaged student body. Agitators who will never be satisfied. Complainers, not doers. This is not the truth.
Having a truly representative democracy means we must listen to all opinions, so we can learn how to best serve our community. Democracy is hard, but because we live in one, we take it for granted. It requires that everyone’s voice be heard, whether they are engaged or not. The fact is democracy does not come naturally, and its continued effectiveness requires upkeep. So, it is no surprise that we are still discovering and correcting flaws in CUSA’s democracy.
This past election, those flaws showed up in a big way when voters rendered three executive positions vacant and several council seats remained empty by default. It is clear that this outcome was not a rejection of well-qualified student leaders, but rather a rejection of the process by which they came to stand for election.
According to CUSA’s governing documents and policies, the nomination period can be a mere two days, and so it was. There are no official guidelines for how to ensure news of the writ of elections reaches all students, and so some students were not reached. The writ can be dropped less than 48 hours before the nomination process opens, and so it was.
The ‘no confidence’ option on the ballot had no stated definition going into this election. There was no procedure for what would happen if no confidence won. There were no rules governing an official or unofficial no confidence campaign.
These are breathtaking policy gaps, the kind of thing you assume someone has already taken care of. But in a democracy, we cannot make that assumption. That ‘someone’ is you and, by extension, us—your elected representatives.
I do not agree that CUSA is broken, or corrupt, or not working for students. I am honoured to work with the current executive and council. I have been impressed by their conduct and dedication to service. But when students feel that there is something wrong with our democracy, we have failed.
It is time to change that. CUSA council should adopt fixed election days and an expanded election schedule that will provide more opportunity for students to get involved. We must mandate points of contact between the elections office and the student body, so no one is left uninformed. We need to concretely define no confidence and the mechanics of a no confidence campaign, even though our reforms will ideally negate the need for one. Finally, we should establish a consistent committee to review elections, including trends in turnout, problems identified and feedback from candidates and voters.
Students should be confident in the electoral process, and last week, we found out this is not the case. Council can fix this. We have a responsibility to fix this. And we will.
