Last weekend, the McGill Daily and Le Délit hosted the Canadian University Press’s annual conference at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown Montreal. The conference was a huge success, providing a unique opportunity for student journalists from across the country to  meet one another and engage with professionals in the field. It’s ironic that the rich atmosphere of discourse fostered by the conference is often absent within McGill itself.

You’re probably sick of the circular arguments and fruitless back-and-forth that surrounds issues like Israel-Palestine, Choose Life, and increased fees for the Daily. Political discourse at McGill has come to resemble a schoolyard shouting match, particularly over the issue of QPIRG opt-out; it can barely even be called discourse any longer.

Discourse is an exchange of opinions between parties on equal footing. It involves an honest attempt to reconcile two opposing points of view; the goal is always increased understanding. What’s happening at McGill is not discourse. Two groups are yelling at each other so loudly that the other side can’t even hear what’s being said anymore. Anyone standing nearby who might want to listen has already been scared off by all the noise. Can these people even hear themselves?

The new Prince Arthur Herald was recently described in the Montreal Mirror as a news portal that “singles out the McGill Daily and thebubble.ca as bastions of the unreasonable campus left.” Such descriptions are even more disheartening for their utter predictability. The extremes on both ends of the political spectrum at McGill are a testament to our school’s diversity. However, they can also be “poisonous,” as Brendan Steven pointed out in his final Trib column last week.

A students, we’re expected to think critically about our own beliefs and opinions—to question assumptions we have never thought to question before. Just because representatives on both sides of the political debate at McGill are able to produce articulate and nuanced arguments for their own positions doesn’t mean they’re able to listen to the arguments expressed by their opponents. If we want to give genuine discourse a chance, we need to be able to listen to what other people are saying. We need to open our ears and our eyes.

But being open-minded about an issue is not simply a matter of saying that you’re willing to listen. Open-mindedness has to be demonstrated, over and over again, through gestures. In the many exchanges between the left and right at McGill, how often have you actually heard someone admit that they’re wrong?

Whether you’re a student or not, whether you read the Daily, the PAH, the Tribune, Le Délit, the Reporter, or the walls of the bathroom stalls in McLennan, it is always important to take a step back and gain some perspective. Remember that McGill gives us an once-in-a-lifetime chance to engage with a variety of viewpoints expressed by a variety of people. It gives us a chance to have our opinions challenged. The refusal to engage in discourse doesn’t just affect you—it affects everyone.

McGill Tribune

As the self-proclaimed representative of the silent student majority, things have been tough here at Life Lines. There is no genuine statistical data on the political beliefs of this majority, so I am left writing heartwarming, greeting-card-line-drenched pieces that attempt only to make the average student smile. Although once described as “trite” by a snobby-nosed English major, Life Lines aims to protect the world from the likes of the McGill Daily and the Prince Arthur Herald. Without at least one smiling (and moderate) idiot waving a fun-loving, anecdotal column as a white flag, debate might become so polarized that 90 per cent of our student body loses interest. Oh wait: that’s already happened.

But let’s not just blame the student pundits; from the capital to the coastline, student societies have been caught supporting causes that students either don’t care about or really don’t care about. No wonder people are disillusioned and uninterested in campus political discussion. Our money goes to student councils and they spend it on facilities, cafeterias, information programs, and radical political parties with weird, confusing names like Canada’s Only Liberal Anti-Progressive Communist Green Party of Canada Party.

Zach Newburgh, president of our own Students’ Society, expressed similar sentiments in a recent chat. He too noted that “referenda and elections are faulty indicators, as only those who care most about an issue will vote, which often leads student governments to take positions that are unrepresentative of the majority of their constituents.” What is to be done? Student councils can’t be purely neutral and never take a stand. That would cripple effective organizations in situations when the large majority of students obviously need them. One example of a worthy issue is facilitating dialogue between students and the administration when there is a possibility of sharp tuition increases.

The answer is fairly simple. In matters directly related to the student’s university experience a student union should do its utmost to enhance said experience, incorporating and debating the many perspectives on what such an experience should be. Ultimately, in these cases, SSMU should take a stand. Otherwise it should sit down and shut up. Newburgh agrees: “I do believe that it is better for student governments to stay out of taking political stances that diverge from post-secondary education and administrative dealings, as it really is far too difficult to determine ‘what students want’ beyond these issues.”

This by no means suggests that we have an apathetic, anti-political student body. Student groups and clubs which have a fairly good idea of their members’ views should be free to fully support their respective causes. They should even be encouraged to do so. Newburgh says: “I do believe that it is important to fund students who wish to take part in political action.” And I agree. But until they have a much better idea of what their constituents’ views are, student unions themselves should be wary of explicitly rallying behind a specific cause. At the end of the day we’re all students: we prefer pastries over propaganda.

McGill Tribune

When Mohamed Bouazizi soaked himself in paint thinner and set himself on fire on December 17, 2010, it wasn’t just his body that erupted. It was an entire country.

Bouazizi was a Tunisian who dropped out of high school in order to support his family of eight. He worked on a small farm owned by his uncle until the government unjustly seized it. Desperate and unemployed, he resorted to selling fruits and vegetables on the streets, until the police confiscated his cart and literally slapped him across the face.

Helpless, he marched to the regional government headquarters to plead his case and redeem his rights. No one listened. In fact, government officials kicked him out of the building, essentially spitting on whatever dignity he had left.

Filled with despair, the 26-year-old burned himself alive in front of  the same government that bulldozed over his right to live with honour and dignity. Shockwaves of protests immediately reverberated throughout the country. Tunisians poured into the streets and fearlessly marched into clouds of tear gas.  

Authoritarian regimes are able to survive so long as their citizens are perpetually terrified to die. This is why corrupt governments keep their people in an endless circle of anxiety, to ensure uncritical compliance, conformity, and obedience by all citizens at all times.

However, these myopic tyrants don’t realize that constant stimulation leads to desensitization. Eventually, citizens learn not to fear death any more precisely because their governments cheapened the currency of life. All it takes for the tables to turn is for someone like Bouazizi to epitomize this reality.

All of a sudden, it was the ruthless Tunisian president who was made to choose between fight-or-flight. Being the brave man that he was, he naturally opted for the latter.

Meanwhile, dictators in neighbouring countries have started taking measures to ensure that their own citizens do not get any ideas from Tunisia’s experience. But they already have.   

Egyptians, who arguably produce the largest number of anti-government jokes per capita, are beyond fed up. President Hosni Mubarak has kept Egypt in a state of emergency since 1981—the entire duration of his rule. In other words, for over 29 years (and counting), the Egyptian government has had the power to imprison individuals for any period of time, and for virtually no reason, without trial or due process.

This is part of the reason why several Bouazizi-inspired Egyptian citizens—including a lawyer—set themselves on fire over the past week, hoping for change.

However, the Egyptians must realize that President Ben Ali did not flee Tunisia after 23 years of merciless rule because of one self-immolation event, or even five. He fled because a critical mass of Tunisians realized that rampant poverty, corruption, censorship, unemployment, and soaring food prices are not a detour away from death; they are a superhighway that leads directly to it.  

Given that Tunisia is now politically shattered and in need of direction, Western governments will be tempted to make an aggressive sales pitch for democracy. There is nothing wrong with extolling the virtues of elected government. However, there is everything wrong with insisting that democracy is only legitimate if it’s imported from the West.

We have seen what happened when George W. Bush’s political surgeons insisted they could successfully transplant American-style democracy into Iraq, even though Iraq’s drastically different cultural, religious and economic climate suggested this was a bad move. Now, almost eight years later, Iraq remains in a coma.

We have a moral obligation to empower those around the world who continue to struggle and bleed and burn for the sake of claiming what rightfully belongs to them. And when they do, let us celebrate their victory and help them rebuild a country that best serves their interests, not ours.

McGill Tribune

A bit earlier than usual this year, the General Assembly is already making waves on campus. A proposal to create a referendum question seeking to abolish the GA and replace it with two (bi-)Annual General Meetings and so-called “private members’ bills” has spurred several Facebook groups and a spirited back and forth among councillors, executives, and students. The proposed AGMs would provide a forum for debate on referendum questions as well as performing some legally required duties, while the private members’ bills would enable any student to get a motion with 50 signatures considered by Council. It is perhaps unsurprising for the Tribune to advocate strongly that councillors adopt this motion, given our oft-expressed interest in abolishing the GA. But it’s addressing some of the concerns regarding this new proposal.

“Consultation” concerns

One common concern pertains to the degree of consultation undertaken before the motion was submitted to Council. Some argue that the Steering Committee was supposed to look at several options for reforming the GA, rather than simply approve a motion to submit its abolition to referendum. There could have been focus groups, town halls, surveys, and the involvement of more councillors, rather than what many consider to be the brainchild of a handful of self-selected people.

“Consultation” has been a popular word recently. But in this case it feels like a distraction rather than a legitimate concern. Students’ Society President Zach Newburgh was interested enough in consultation to call for committee members to review the GA, but he received only one volunteer in response. Opponents said he could have tried harder, but this seems more like a dispute about personal interpretations of how much consultation is enough­: a question of degree rather than principle.

It’s also curious to complain of a lack of consultation on a motion being put forward to Council, which is, in fact, a consultative body. Students elected by their peers will have the opportunity to debate, amend, and vote on the motion before it proceeds to referendum. All students can speak at Council and have the right to petition their councillors to vote in a certain way. Should Council allow this motion to go to referendum, every student will have the opportunity to either reject or accept it. Consultation before action makes sense. But the main complaint seems to be that there was not enough consultation before, well, consultation.

Finally, the vast majority of students have shown a consistent unwillingness to engage in consultative mechanisms such as town halls. Students’ opinions should be sought but cannot be forced into existence. All this talk of “consultation” and “process” is a distraction from the real debate, which should be about the merits of the motion itself.

The GA is not democratic

Opponents of the resolution are also concerned that eliminating the GA is tantamount to scrapping a rare example of direct democracy at McGill. They see the GA as the only forum on campus in which all students can amend, debate, and vote on motions; that this unique opportunity for face-to-face interaction is not adequately replaced in the new proposal; and that therefore the GA, however flawed, shouldn’t be abandoned.

Any contentions that the new motion seeks to erase direct democracy at McGill must be framed against a crucial fact: the GA as it exists is fundamentally undemocratic. Students with scheduling conflicts cannot attend and thus cannot vote. If the room gets filled to capacity, students who cannot get in do not get to vote. The GA violates the democratic principles both of one-person-one-vote and the right to a secret ballot (without the majority’s assent). Reform, too, seems impossible. It would be difficult to advertise more than past SSMU executives have. SSMU could rent a larger room, but this requires a substantial investment for something that is normally under-attended. The process could be changed—but no replacement could guarantee more civility or eliminate a learning curve. The ancient Greeks knew well that when a community passes a certain size, direct, interpersonal democracy becomes impossible. The ideals of the GA are inspiring, but they may be more easily achieved with the abolition of the GA rather than with its stubborn preservation.

The proposal on the table would preserve debate while reserving voting for the referendum process more traditionally associated with direct democracy, and which provides time and privacy for any student to vote in comfort. The proposed AGMs will still provide a forum for interested students to discuss referendum questions, but hopefully eliminate the highly contentious and polarized situations we’ve seen in the last two years. While the proposed AGMs do not allow students to amend motions, this is a price we are willing to pay for a clearer, easier, and more democratic system.

Some students also have concerns about an increased reliance on Council. The new proposal would  put more power in the hands of councillors, elected it’s true, but often acclaimed or voted in based on popularity. Yet for all its flaws, council is voted in through elections accessible to all students and its actions are more representative of those students than those of a self-appointed mob accountable to nobody.

Ask the students directly

A vote for this motion is not a permanent commitment to anything except making tangible change. Change in any direction has been elusive for several years and should not be delayed again. The arguments regarding consultation are analogous to Republicans claiming they did not like Obama’s health care plan because of the voting process. And let’s not forget the most important point,  one that all councillors concerned about democracy and consultation should be able to agree on:

If this entire debate is about how to make SSMU operations more democratic, this question should go to referendum. There is surely no better way to consult with students than to ask their opinions directly, in a referendum.