NUS Ballot Box - Picture: Tom Worman

Smashing Apathy or Reducing Democracy?

Milking The Apathy?

A NUS (National Union of Students) Governance Review has been released to explore options to conquer apathy within the NUS.

The attempt is said to involve more students in the Union’s key role, which is to represent the beliefs and aims of students. The aim is commendable; however the methods suggested appear to some to be flawed. The report concedes that students are “unable to recognise the benefits that NUS brings to them beyond the discount card”, and it goes on to outline plans to decrease apathy. However, many of these changes appear to make the structure of the NUS less democratic.

The Governance Review outlines a plan to replace the existing structures of NUS with a new Senate. The review’s description of the role and make up of this powerful group appears vague at the least, with the opportunity to be manipulated into whatever somebody's whim leads them to. The suggested changes would mean people from the NUS would represent 97% of the members, with little allowances for a typical student to rise to a position where their voice could be heard.
The claimed aim to conquer student apathy is not a new concern of the NUS. A campaign currently being run is the “smashing apathy” campaign, which aims to involve students more integrally with the democratic and representation elements of the NUS. However, whilst this campaign is ongoing the NUS’ main focus of communication with students, particularly new students is seems to be ‘milk it’, the aim of which is to convince students to buy an Extra card.

The NUS is taking £10 for an NUS Extra card, but what are you getting for your money? 10% off at HMV, but you’d get that with your free Campus card anyway. So why are the NUS taking your £10 along with the Union’s affiliation fee? If proposals outlined this week by the NUS pass through, what you get for your money will be severely limited and the individual student’s ability to access the democratic representation and make their voice heard will be severely constrained.

The current system allows for any student to put forward a motion to the NUS' Conference which is voted upon and, if passed, becomes part of the NUS' policy. The new system proposed questions grass roots democracy and suggests the introduction of a collection of limits to the role played by the average student in their own Union.
Very little information is being circulated to encourage students to be involved in or to understand the representation element of the NUS.

Surely one of the most effective ways of destroying the levels of apathy is to invest the same time and money into educating people on their union as has been invested into the selling of Extra cards.
The reports authors were “not intended to be in any way representative” and this lack of representation it can be argued continues throughout the review.

Opinions differ widely on the Governance Review, some believe it is a way forward for the NUS, while others believe it had noble aims but has reached a poor conclusion. One question that needs to be asked though, is: is smashing apathy best achieved by removing peoples’ democracy?