Devil's Advocate: Should Student Societies Be Democratic?

YES: Alden Arnold

Winston Churchill famously called democracy “the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried.” I tend to agree with Winnie; democracy may have its faults, but they become peanuts when compared to more dictatorial alternatives. These debates, however, are as old and worn as antiquity, so let us apply them to something a tad more familiar: the student society.

St Andrews may be a haven for student royalty, but even its most partisan student societies are a far cry from hereditary monarchies. Fashion shows, music collectives, and ball committees are organised by top-down appointment, as graduations compel annual executive turnover. These clubs better resemble oligarchies than dynasties, but the question remains: should committee members be hand-picked by the elite few or elected by the masses?

I won’t beat the dead horse and bore you with a list of democracy’s prudential advantages; these are praised to death, and it’s impossible to prove that an appointed student committee is wiser than an elected one. I’ll even concede that St Andrews’ most successful events are more often run by these oligarchies. The moral debate is a bit rich for a Devil’s Advocate, isn’t it? It’s instead in their institutional durability — counterintuitive as it sounds — that democratically-elected societies outperform their counterparts.

No AGM is without drama; I’ve watched running mates defect, friends challenge one another on the ballot, and overcompensative campaigns leak into meetings and socials. Such is life, however, and no oligarchic committee is immune from these trivialities.

In democratic societies, these pre-election theatrics are dispersed across many heads, and nominees are forced to gain favour through populist means. Nominees may pander to their voters by deepening their involvement within the society — displaying their commitment and building recognition — and delivering additional flattery to its voting members. So be it if it’s grossly ingenuine. Oligarchic candidates, on the other hand, must battle with favouritism. Campaign tactics tend towards gossip, sabotage, in-fighting, and disruptive personal politics as rivals vie to impress their appointor.

Likewise, in a democracy, a lost election cannot be blamed on a single committee member, and the decision must instead be accepted as the general will of the society. Oligarchic appointments conversely risk social and political schisms, and verdicts can only be taken personally, as decision-making power is concentrated in the elite few. Committees are thus subject to annual fallouts, jeopardising the society’s collective continuity.

Institutional practices, however, do get passed down more directly in these centralised student societies. This can be as much a guiding virtue as it can be a damning vice. The same processes that protect organisational understandings may also encourage the inheritance of sinister practices. Corruption, embezzlement, and fraud may very well lurk undetected across St Andrews student societies, kept hidden through secretive appointments and back-door agreements. Absolute oversight of succession all but guarantees from future committees censorship of financial misdoings. Such rackets are almost impossible to maintain in a democracy. Elections throw dynastic predictability out the window, and con artists are thus barred from institutionalising corruption.

Our student democracies are resilient to these petty and ruinous trifles. They may be inefficient, and they may be superficial, but elections safeguard student societies from political, financial, and reputational collapse. More intangibly, they enforce a positive social culture. AGMs simultaneously constrain noxious behaviour while promoting societal engagement, community, and discourse. It’s not simply enough to certify that a student society survives into the next academic year, but democratic structures ensure that the societies which endure, the societies that provide our student body with its social backbone, are worth keeping.

NO: Emma McVittie

Let’s get one thing straight: I’m not campaigning for a dictatorship. After all, we need something to populate the ‘experience’ section of our LinkedIn profiles — and we know that for the majority of St Andrews students the notion of a part-time job is inconceivable. After surviving several years of student society committees, however, I’m convinced that democracy, in this context, is wildly overrated. 

I’m all for a good AGM. I love listening to shaky speeches about community and improvement, and pretending that committee roles are meaningful professional experience. Once the AGM ends, though, the voting should too. 

Instead, every week, in the circle of hell known as committee meetings, an hour is wasted listening to updates on parts of the society that have absolutely nothing to do with my role. I’m routinely forced to weigh in on matters I’d happily never consider again. What merchandise should we buy? What theme should our fundraiser have? In two separate societies, I have voted on what we should wear at competitions. Seriously. 

These decisions need to be made, yes, but that is why we have merchandise officers, charity reps, and captains. We elected them for a reason. Now let them do their jobs. For most committee members, these things are irrelevant to their roles. So why do they get a vote?

In fact, I’d go so far as to say committee voting is undemocratic. Simply holding a committee role does not make a person more enlightened than the average club member is about any given issue. So why shouldn’t that club member get a say, too? Why not have whole-club votes for every decision? 

We all know why not. It’s impossible to routinely gather hundreds of members, and even if we could, people do not always vote with the long-term interests of the society in mind. Take sports clubs: elite competitive teams receive benefits from Saints Sports, including increased funding. Imagine a club on the brink of performance sport status. The sensible choice might be to invest in the competitive squad this year to secure that standing. However, put it to a vote of the whole club and the majority may prefer subsidised Christmas dinners. A worthy cause, but not in the best interests of the club in the long run. 

The same faulty reasoning infects committees. Democracy without competence leads to bad outcomes (Brexit, anyone?) — my belief is that we should nip it in the bud. 

My convictions may raise concerns over the consequences of one person having too much influence. In many cases, over-voting creates power hoarding. It gives irrelevant voices equal weight, especially if there are individuals with sway over other committee members. Considering the prominence of political manoeuvring and alliances in real governments, it doesn’t take a cynic to believe that people will vote with their friends in student matters. 

We chose someone for the job, and maybe — just maybe — we should let them do it. Everyone else can read about it in the weekly email, along with all the people who still haven’t figured out how to unsubscribe from the mailing list (you have to email the society).

Photo from Wikimedia Commons