Elections plagued by a traditionally high incumbency rate and traditionally low voter turnout seem to be the model of democracy at U of T. Add to that a recent boycott of the upcoming UTSU elections by the only major opposition slate and it seems that student politics at the U of T are doomed to dysfunction. Students feel either apathetic and uninvolved or completely disenfranchised, and many believe the current system is not able to adequately address their concerns. Presented with this reality we are forced to ask the question: why are students required to be part of the union at all?
In 1948, Canada voted for the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1982, we adopted our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In both these documents, freedom of association is listed as a protected right. The UN Declaration stated explicitly that no human being can be “compelled to belong to an association.” This right is absent at U of T. In direct contrast to both these documents, students are compelled not only to be part of the student union, but forced to pay dues whether or not they agree with how their money is being spent.
The current channels by which students can express their concern are criticized as being insufficient and biased towards the status quo. The turnout rate for past elections has rarely exceeded 10 per cent, with the near complete re-election of the incumbent members. When 60 per cent of Canadians turn out to vote, federal elections are lambasted as being unrepresentative. How representative, then, can UTSU be?
It is not surprising that students feel a sense of disenfranchisement, as the only channel available to them to affect policy change seems to be broken. The lack of such democratic accountability has led to the boycott of upcoming UTSU elections by the opposition slate, StudentsFirst.
These problems, however, are not restricted to U of T nor, indeed, to Canada. New Zealand has confronted these concerns by pushing for voluntary student union membership. Sir Roger Douglas, former Minister of Finance and currently an MP for the ACT Party, is championing a bill that would give students the choice to join a union or not. When asked for comment, Douglas stated, “At a fundamental level relationships between individuals and society should be based on consent. […] They should be based on voluntary cooperation.” It was this principal he sought to extend to student union membership. Involvement in UTSU is, of course, anything but voluntary.
If students had the choice to opt out of UTSU, the union would no longer be answerable only to rival slates at election time, but to every student. The Union would be held constantly accountable and would need to provide tangible improvements to student life. Students who felt they were best served by the union would keep their membership, while those who felt their concerns remained unaddressed could, if the democratic channels consistently failed them, opt out. To prevent freeloaders from benefiting from UTSU funds while not paying dues, simple caveats could be introduced. For example, a club wishing to receive UTSU funding might be required to have a majority of dues-paying members to be eligible.
The argument against this practice is, of course, that the union would then be sapped of funds and rendered unable to supply needed services. When confronted by this question, Sir Roger Douglas explained, “Any organization that can deliver services their customers want [���] will have no trouble attracting [membership].” In the case of student unions, if they “really do provide [needed] services […] then they should have nothing to worry about.” Experiences of voluntary student unions — which are the norm in Australia — have found this to be the case. While the budgets of some were depleted, many others actually saw an increase in funds as they focused their efforts on improving student life instead of championing political causes. It should also be noted that voluntary student unions have found sources of income outside of student levies (some being able to eliminate dues altogether) by receiving, for example, funding from local businesses who benefit from student patronage.
Ultimately, however, this issue goes beyond material arguments. The fact is that freedom of association is a Charter and human right. Even if voter turnout were 90 per cent and there was regular turnover in student representation, those individuals who felt UTSU did not reflect their interests should be guaranteed the ability to opt out. It is every student’s right as a human being to do so. As Sir Roger Douglas said on the floor of the New Zealand Parliament, “Associations […] are not truly representative of their members’ convictions if they are forced to join. They are, in fact, meaningless — the mere playthings of those who control them.”
