Let's talk political reality.
Most students view the Students' Union as a hack-ridden, distant, even corrupt and certainly ineffectual representative.
The on-going Chief Returning Officer Adam "criminal record" Green scandal and the dominance of Kappa Alpha and other fraternity members in the organization have damaged the SU's credibility. Two years ago, one colourful editorialist called these opportunists "C.V. Lice"; his words still ring true today.
Generally, students also believe most of their SU Executives want post-graduation political careers in the Tory, Grit or Reform superstructures. Presidents Boissonault, Filewych, and Scott were, respectively: Grit, Tory, Tory. Can we trust them to truly represent us with a strong voice if their careers might be on the line in four years? We all know they can serve us but can they represent us effectively?
I remember a column by vp External Kyle Kasawski. He told how Advanced Education Minister Jack Ady laughed him out of the Legislature when he told them (on our behalf) not to deregulate tuition fees. He returned with other university representatives and learned an important lesson: numbers mean power.
Deregulation, if ever a real threat, was evaded.
Why can't he apply that hard-earned lesson to students and not just student representatives?
The newly-formed Canadian Alliance of Student Associations (CASA) is another of these representatives' groups. Elected people get together and wonder about how they can help their constituencies. This elitist ideology must end. For the SU to effectively lobby the government they must have a mobilized student population willing to make their strength known.
Otherwise, the SU leaves itself vulnerable to the "special interest" label as defined by Ralph Klein: lacking popular support. How?
Include us.
However, we cannot separate empowerment from inclusion. This year, the SU has showered students with forum and council invitations. Most of them have had crowds of three or four latecomers. Suzanne Scott said the absence of students showed a lot of agreement with their direction after the failure of one forum on the mysterious SU Strategic Plan. When students don't even think they can contribute at the SU level, I can only blame the SU for their cynicism.
The January 25 protest's success had everything to do with its activity; it empowered people. I'm still buzzing from the energy, creativity and the exciting solidarity we felt together. Frozen toes, placard slivers and hoarse throats mobilize and politicize people better than any forum. Though this column is not for STORM, I should clarify that STORM called for Action, not for a student strike like the Canadian Federation of Students; cutting classes was a consequence, not a goal of the protest. Notably, the turn out for the SU's pre-rally forum jumped to several dozen.
Students have not directed the SU to let them organize themselves. I think they reject Kasawski's rationalization as an abandonment of SU responsibility. Students' support for STORM is an indirect accusation against the SU. STORM would not exist if the SU had done its job.
Students now pay $1000 more in tuition than they did in 1991 because the SU Execs have ignored the strategic value of demonstrable student power alongside representation. The SU must recognize and abandon its elitist ideology for its failure and again take responsibility for mobilizing students.