Caucuses, and why they are relevant to us!

Josh James

All the worst arguments start with “that’s how Nazi Germany started” so I’m purposefully avoiding that amusing but clichéd introduction. But the phrase coined by the great John Stuart Mill is as appropriate here as anywhere: “the tyranny of the majority was at first, and still is… when society is itself the tyrant -- society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it”.

Mill was not necessarily calling normal people tyrants, and neither am I. But what happens when the views of those in a minority are not represented as loudly as the collective voices of the majority, is that they effectively get trampled on.

My view of caucuses is simple; not only are they widespread in many political forums as a fair and equal way of making sure all voices are heard, but they are an incredibly effective tool, for education, progression and justice.  Democracy has always been said to come in many different forms, a very flexible political system indeed: Democracy can be used in different ways to best reflect the social need it is required to fulfil. From, Germany’s safe coalition system, to Britain’s theatrical and adversarial politics, many different forms of democracy can be seen to work all over the world, none of them “less democratic” than the next. Even the union went through a democratic overhaul, it is no more democratic now than it was before, but it is a democracy that better suits the needs of the student body, or so some believe. One thing is for sure, we shouldn’t be scared of changing our system if it’s going to suit us better as a society.

Caucuses can help the voice of the smallest be heard, and usually the majority in modern society are interested in what they have to say, and so they should be. The actions of the majority in fact often greatly affect the minority yet the opposite is rarely true. E.g. a policy to become a republic state affects everybody in the UK, yet a policy for equal marriage only really affects the LGBT caucus. Similarly, policy that has an impact upon caucuses can only justifiably voted on by those who self-identify because otherwise it would be akin to all political parties voting in a Labour leadership election. Not only would it drown out the voice of those with an interest, rendering the Labour voice pointless, they would also be the ones who would have most to lose.

Furthermore, the caucus itself, although anonymous, can act as a vital support group for those facing very real challenges in day to day life that the average person on the street can rarely comprehend. In real terms, with the University and local authorities cutting student welfare bodies, the support can be invaluable. Not to mention the huge advantage it gives to that golden word; inclusivity. People always feel more welcome if there are people who understand them better.

Politically, caucuses should not be looked at with suspicion or as a threat. A disabled caucus with a voting right is not about to vote on things that do not directly concern disable issues, nor are they going to plan a coup or uprising. The thought that caucuses could or would undermine democracy is a dangerous one, as it deepens the gap of us and them, and creates a feeling of hostility (and that is how Nazi Germany started).

Caucuses can add a lot of democracy to an organisation; if democracy is meant to be the voice of the people, then the voice of everybody should surely be held independently and equally.

If you have any arguments against what I have written then please post below, I am happy to start a reasoned debate.

 

This piece represents Josh James' view on the situation, not that of AULS. If you have a piece you'd like to contribute, or reply to this post, email tdk@aber.ac.uk.