Breaking the AUSA bubble

BNOC and BNIB are acronyms that reveal a somewhat unsettling truth about the Aberdeen University Students Association (AUSA). BNOC (Big Name on Campus), and BNIB (Big Name in Butchart) represent the level of insularity that separates the Student Associations’ officers and their friends from the wider student population.

This article is written from the perspective of a critical friend, a socialist with a sincere love for student organisation and activism. As a friend, I look at AUSA’s current state and am deeply saddened. An organ meant for the benefit of all students, dedicated to representing our interests and winning a better quality educational experience for all of us.

At a national level, as a member of the NUS we have a genuine voice in the Scottish government thanks to tenacious leadership. So on the face of it, we’re in a pretty good position, no?

I’m not so sure. In the 2013 elections, just over 2500 votes were cast in the AUSA exec committee elections, out of a campus of over 15000. AUSA celebrated, it was the best results in a while; approximately 1000 more votes than the previous year. I’m not sure that celebrations were in order. It is an improvement, but not nearly good enough. This year we saw a decrease, with only 2100 (approx) votes being cast.

For the relatively insular AUSA community this worked out fine. But, simply put, a very small proportion of students took part in our decision making process, making our claims of genuine representation tenuous.

Now I’m largely supportive of the policies pursued, and have actively supported many of the successful sabbatical officers, but we need to seriously think about the culture that surrounds AUSA when to a large proportion of the students affected, the democratic structures available don’t seem to be used.

Part of the problem is of course, systemic. AUSA attracts certain types of people, officious and policy driven, power obsessed and bureaucratic….etc. These ‘establishment’ figures maybe start early on and work their way through the various offices and committees, becoming so called BNOC’s and BNIB’s in the process. The system is open to high level political strategising, with people working together to ensure a large group of like minded folks obtain positions within the association that can be used to drive policy in a particular direction.

This isn’t a problem – all democratic systems have this and it is broadly positive. However some of these policies stray far away from individual remits which makes for what I would argue to be a constitutional problem.

The main thrust of this article is, however, about how pervasive the navel gazing in AUSA really is. Us long time hacks occupy ourselves almost daily with the question: “How do we get more people involved?”

There’s no easy, clear answer, but perhaps there are a few places we can start to make the necessary changes.

3 out of 4 officers are returning sabbs.

Firstly – stop fearing outside candidates.

This year’s underdogs.

In the latest bout of elections, outsider candidates with fewer AUSA connections simply didn’t and have never stood a chance without the backing of a large student society (in and of itself a problem, but more on that later).

But having a candidate who hasn’t been acclimatised to the bureaucratised and small conservative position of AUSA might just be a good thing.

Instead, fears are raised that such an outsider might be disruptive. What if a bit of an eccentric element is just what we need? Someone who can potentially reach out and talk to the students that haven’t engaged with the current order of things.

Secondly – see this whole nepotism/cronyism thing? End it. Stop it.

We shouldn’t vote for our mate, we should vote for the best potential candidate. Casually sauntering up the library concourse as the president of a large and engaged student society with your election in the bag means that no matter what you’re saying, no matter how outrageous, you’re not going to face much a challenge.

When you are a candidate supported by the entirety (or close to the entirety) of the AUSA Establishment, even when you enjoy limited or lesser support among your own demographic, then you as perhaps a less suited candidate don’t necessarily best represent your position. Perhaps these BNIBS simply aren’t the right people for the job.

AUSA is broken, or at least damaged, if we work hard and examine our attitudes we might – just might – be able to fix it. But things need to change now.