In the first of a two-part series on democracy in law schools, we get law student, “Squeaky Wheel”, to argue why open elections are required in law schools..I’ve spent the best part of five years at an NLU that does not have open elections for the leaders of its student body; I write this to advocate for a change to open elections. For this purpose, the utility or virtue of democracy as a broad theory governing international or national politics is irrelevant and is not discussed. Democracy, like any other political theory is capable of adaptation to suit particular ends and I consider it worth examining if a university such as mine is suited to it..The whole of the undergraduate student body at my University is aged roughly within five years of each other. Not only is the number of girls and boys roughly equal, but girls marginally outnumber boys in the younger batches. Residence is compulsorily on campus for all undergraduates. Questions of fees and the allocation of funds are currently, and would likely continue to be in the administration’s domain, although opinions are always invited. The student body is headed by a final year student, chosen for having the highest GPA in his batch..Democracy is primarily criticised on two grounds – the likelihood of it being ineffective because of the unequal distribution of information amongst participants and the potential for the marginalisation of minorities. On a broader scale, such as on a national scale, the first criticism is legitimate. The educationally and locationally disadvantaged (the illiterate and people in isolated villages, respectively) would be unlikely to have access to as much information as an informed political choice demands. But this criticism does not carry water in the context of a residential university. The setup is ideal for this experiment: the population is small (~500) and captive. Background information of candidates is available for the asking, even in the unlikely event that the voter does not know them personally. Since everyone has given an aptitude examination that mandates a high school education, and has displayed sufficient proficiency in that exam to make it to a fairly well-known institution, the question of being taken advantage or being intimidated by the more literate does not arise..Those against student elections bemoan the unpleasant ‘politicisation’ of the atmosphere that they believe is bound to occur if partisan politics is encouraged. One would ask the people who dislike elections for encouraging people with partisan interests- what has a man with a fantastic GPA proved but that he works well in his own interest? If he is hardworking, he is hardworking to his own purposes. If he is dedicated, he is dedicated to his own wellbeing. At worst, he may be motivated by the potential power thrill of commanding an entire student body. What inference can be drawn regarding his motivations towards the larger majority? None at all, in fact. If he is patient and generous with his time, as my seniors and my friends in these positions have almost unfailingly been, these are coincidences that we, as a student body should be thankful for. These are not guarantees that we may depose our leader for breach of, should he fail to act as we expect him to. And this is really the crux of the problem as it stands. Reasonability demands that a man only be held to his promises, and the only rational method by which a student body may covenant with him on the basis of those promises is the ‘contract’ of election. Election on the basis of a manifesto creates a predictability of policy and process that is absent in the case of nominated leadership, where one has no option but to rely on the benignity and proactivity of the man in the seat, which of course, may not exist at all..Even otherwise, the singular feature of the student body in a University like mine is the concentrated presence in a small place, of a large number of almost equivalently qualified people competing everyday towards the same, limited aims – GPAs, moots, debates, internships, scholarships and jobs. Law school – and of course, law itself – is an exercise in adversarial behaviour. Conflict is always present even if passive, and learning to deal with it constructively is a large part of growing up. The presence of elections cannot substantially affect a population that is already as inured to conflict as law students..Our administration currently has an open-door policy. Our Vice Chancellor is well known to be easily accessible, sympathetic to student demands and enthusiastic. The details of everyday living are usually well taken care of; the question that remains, then, is what interests could possibly be better addressed by students. These questions could pertain to building a better library, locating quality faculty and streamlining placement processes. It would seem, then, that our version of democracy would best be limited to the election of committee conveners and the student body leader, with the scope of their powers (and thus their promises) clearly limited to make sure that no one student or faction has control over the basics – food, fees and funds. Limiting powers could create confidence in reticent students who would rather not shake the boat and freshers who may abstain for fear of reprisal, with the advantage of also bringing a narrow focus to the issues that really need addressing..Perhaps the biggest advantage that open elections could seek to achieve is a sense of personal investment in the well-being of one’s own institution. It could create alumni who remain in contact with the administration after graduating, and play an active role in its development, whether in helping with teaching, locating faculty or protesting maladministration, if any. It could create a healthy respect for the rule of law or an informed criticism of democracy – both infinitely useful to future law makers..And if, in the end, this experiment in politics does not satisfy, it only takes a referendum to undo. Democracy, then, has the last word after all..Coming up next week: Why elections in law schools might not be a good idea after all.Image courtesy this site.
In the first of a two-part series on democracy in law schools, we get law student, “Squeaky Wheel”, to argue why open elections are required in law schools..I’ve spent the best part of five years at an NLU that does not have open elections for the leaders of its student body; I write this to advocate for a change to open elections. For this purpose, the utility or virtue of democracy as a broad theory governing international or national politics is irrelevant and is not discussed. Democracy, like any other political theory is capable of adaptation to suit particular ends and I consider it worth examining if a university such as mine is suited to it..The whole of the undergraduate student body at my University is aged roughly within five years of each other. Not only is the number of girls and boys roughly equal, but girls marginally outnumber boys in the younger batches. Residence is compulsorily on campus for all undergraduates. Questions of fees and the allocation of funds are currently, and would likely continue to be in the administration’s domain, although opinions are always invited. The student body is headed by a final year student, chosen for having the highest GPA in his batch..Democracy is primarily criticised on two grounds – the likelihood of it being ineffective because of the unequal distribution of information amongst participants and the potential for the marginalisation of minorities. On a broader scale, such as on a national scale, the first criticism is legitimate. The educationally and locationally disadvantaged (the illiterate and people in isolated villages, respectively) would be unlikely to have access to as much information as an informed political choice demands. But this criticism does not carry water in the context of a residential university. The setup is ideal for this experiment: the population is small (~500) and captive. Background information of candidates is available for the asking, even in the unlikely event that the voter does not know them personally. Since everyone has given an aptitude examination that mandates a high school education, and has displayed sufficient proficiency in that exam to make it to a fairly well-known institution, the question of being taken advantage or being intimidated by the more literate does not arise..Those against student elections bemoan the unpleasant ‘politicisation’ of the atmosphere that they believe is bound to occur if partisan politics is encouraged. One would ask the people who dislike elections for encouraging people with partisan interests- what has a man with a fantastic GPA proved but that he works well in his own interest? If he is hardworking, he is hardworking to his own purposes. If he is dedicated, he is dedicated to his own wellbeing. At worst, he may be motivated by the potential power thrill of commanding an entire student body. What inference can be drawn regarding his motivations towards the larger majority? None at all, in fact. If he is patient and generous with his time, as my seniors and my friends in these positions have almost unfailingly been, these are coincidences that we, as a student body should be thankful for. These are not guarantees that we may depose our leader for breach of, should he fail to act as we expect him to. And this is really the crux of the problem as it stands. Reasonability demands that a man only be held to his promises, and the only rational method by which a student body may covenant with him on the basis of those promises is the ‘contract’ of election. Election on the basis of a manifesto creates a predictability of policy and process that is absent in the case of nominated leadership, where one has no option but to rely on the benignity and proactivity of the man in the seat, which of course, may not exist at all..Even otherwise, the singular feature of the student body in a University like mine is the concentrated presence in a small place, of a large number of almost equivalently qualified people competing everyday towards the same, limited aims – GPAs, moots, debates, internships, scholarships and jobs. Law school – and of course, law itself – is an exercise in adversarial behaviour. Conflict is always present even if passive, and learning to deal with it constructively is a large part of growing up. The presence of elections cannot substantially affect a population that is already as inured to conflict as law students..Our administration currently has an open-door policy. Our Vice Chancellor is well known to be easily accessible, sympathetic to student demands and enthusiastic. The details of everyday living are usually well taken care of; the question that remains, then, is what interests could possibly be better addressed by students. These questions could pertain to building a better library, locating quality faculty and streamlining placement processes. It would seem, then, that our version of democracy would best be limited to the election of committee conveners and the student body leader, with the scope of their powers (and thus their promises) clearly limited to make sure that no one student or faction has control over the basics – food, fees and funds. Limiting powers could create confidence in reticent students who would rather not shake the boat and freshers who may abstain for fear of reprisal, with the advantage of also bringing a narrow focus to the issues that really need addressing..Perhaps the biggest advantage that open elections could seek to achieve is a sense of personal investment in the well-being of one’s own institution. It could create alumni who remain in contact with the administration after graduating, and play an active role in its development, whether in helping with teaching, locating faculty or protesting maladministration, if any. It could create a healthy respect for the rule of law or an informed criticism of democracy – both infinitely useful to future law makers..And if, in the end, this experiment in politics does not satisfy, it only takes a referendum to undo. Democracy, then, has the last word after all..Coming up next week: Why elections in law schools might not be a good idea after all.Image courtesy this site.
