Epigram is an independent and neutral newspaper, aiming to publish opinions from across the student body. To respond with an opposing opinion, please contact comment@epigram.org.uk or join our writers group

Oliver Chapman argues that the SU's Annual Members Meeting is not representative of the student body, and therefore more must be done to strengthen its democracy.

There was once a time that student politics represented the views of those it claimed to represent. Decisions had the interests of its membership at heart, policy genuinely stood up for those in need and everyone had a say. Not anymore.

At its Annual Member’s Meeting on Tuesday, Bristol SU yet again demonstrated its incessant inability to connect with the student body. It was a long evening of messy debates which in general not only failed to engage with the motions under discussion, but crucially failed to inspire enough interest to manage the most basic of requirements: a quorum.

"Each student in that room held the power to vote on behalf of nearly 90 other students"

In all only 270 students attended the meeting of the 24,050 potential students at Bristol. The measly quorum of 1.5 per cent of the student population was missed by over 100 people and each student in that room held the power to vote on behalf of nearly 90 other students. If the largest 9 of the UK’s 650 constituencies took it upon themselves to vote for the rest of the country there would rightful be outrage, but this is exactly what we saw at the AMM.

A mandate is surely the one crucial accolade a body needs in order to call itself both democratic and representative, but with such low turnouts the SU’s only democratic meeting where every Bristol student can vote is left dead in the water. In fact only once in the last 5 years has an AMM been quorate when in 2016 the meeting only just scraped by. Even then, as the meeting rambled on the SU’s only quorum in years was lost before any real debate got underway.

Seven motions were passed yesterday evening at the Annual Members' Meeting, the remaining three will be passed to next year's student councilhttps://t.co/cwnQXwaGvy pic.twitter.com/B600wUlHo7

— Epigram (@EpigramPaper) 28 February 2018

Further still, what’s perhaps more insulting than the under-representation by the student body is the SU’s desperate policy to forward motions from failed AMMs to be approved by the Student Council. The problem lies in the fact that while the SC is democratically elected, it is formed from sports captains, society presidents and course reps who despite their crucial roles in student life nevertheless weren’t elected to represent the political beliefs of their electorate.

"The Student Council is formed from sports captains, society presidents and course reps who despite their crucial roles in student life nevertheless weren’t elected to represent the political beliefs of their electorate"

Ultimately the pitiful and endemic turnouts at SU events hands small, yet incredibly vocal, factions of the University studentship the opportunity to self-indulgently steer discussion of the SU in a direction which largely favours members of only those factions. With such insignificant and disproportionate turnouts, as long as each group bundles enough bodies into the meeting, the group as a whole will wield a vastly disproportionate and incomprehensibly unfair token of the SU’s supposed democracy.

The blatant failings of the SU to represent the fundamental interests of students were depicted by a question to the SU’s Undergraduate Education Officer. When asked whether he’d continue to support the strikes in the months to come, Mason Ammar quite proudly proclaimed that even after months of missed lectures – and with the very real possibility of exam turmoil on the near horizon –he would support the strikes no matter what.

"Even after months of missed lectures, and with the very real possibility of exam turmoil on the near horizon, Mason Ammar would support the strikes no matter what"

I haven’t met a single person who hasn’t said that they are not worried about the strike. It universally affects all students at the University, but the ‘debate’ was one of the shortest of the night. Not one person questioned whether the SU should support action which so clearly disrupts our degrees. Not one person brought up whether it is the SU’s place to fund a late amendment to fund the protesters to the tune of several hundred pounds.

It was with no great surprise that Ammar’s response was met with a roar of approval with the same ferocity with which supporters of the strikes have met students brave enough to cross picket lines in recent days. And why not applaud? – The protesters had after all voted in their proposal to fund their protests with your money.

One might have thought that the SU should be investing our money to improve the wellbeing of students at the University. Certainly, one might think, the SU should have no business dishing up tea and scones for protestors who freely chose to sit in the cold, harassing the rest of us, while we pick ourselves up from the shambles that have become of this strike.

"The strike universally affects all students at the University, but the ‘debate’ was one of the shortest of the night"

What saddens me is the fact that the AMM could be a place for students to genuinely change life at Bristol for the better. There were certainly glimpses of this, from the exciting new program “Be Mankind Active” which aims to support men’s mental health, to a heart-warming motion to prevent the University cutting funding to a program which supports a small number of refugees and asylum in taking degrees.

It seems that without an intervention the SU will ultimately continue to fall short of the mandate it deserves to carry out the crucial work it could be completing. Indeed, it strikes me that until the SU remedies its endemic failings to engage with the wider student body, it will be unable to cater for the unheard needs of its members.

Featured image: Epigram / Nikki Peach