How can we revitalize our student democracy?

Student democracy is a fundamental principle of the MSU, but as participation falters, what can we do to re-centre it in student life?

Election turnout is a yearly topic of discussion at the Silhouette and throughout the MSU, whether there excitement at high participation, or more frequently worry over student disinterest.

The 2024 McMaster Students Union presidential election saw a 56 per cent increase in voter turnout from 2023, something re-elected MSU President Jovan Popovic saw as a testament to the MSU’s increasing connection with students coming out of the pandemic. But while this increase in turnout is important, it misses the reality that the MSU has been in a crisis of democratic disengagement for years.

The introduction of electronic voting to MSU elections in 2010 saw student participation jump from nine per cent to 22 per cent in one year. Over the next 7 years, turnout continued on an upward trend, remaining for 5 years at over 40 per cent until its sudden 13 per cent drop in 2018. From then on, presidential elections have continued to see disappointingly low voter turnout and overall engagement in student politics, including the acclamation of a president in 2021 when only one candidate ran.

Even last year’s rebound hides ongoing struggles. 2024’s MSU General Assembly saw a 50 per cent decline in attendance since 2023, from ten to five members present, more than 750 people shy of quorum each time. This not only means that the General Assembly’s resolutions are non-binding, but that it also fails to effectively inform the Student Representative Assembly of student opinion.

The difference between presidential election turnout and participation in the other facets of student democracy illustrates students’ complex relationship with the MSU and its president. The well publicized presidential race, with platforms full of often detailed and/or ambitious promises, attracts participation perhaps because it seems to be the easiest and highest impact way to have your voice heard in the MSU.

The presidential election is democracy at work without the complex procedure of the SRA, the referendum process, or the General Assembly. These procedures exist for a reason but they have to be balanced with creating a democratic spirit among students.

There is one exception to the recent democratic decline of the MSU, and that is 2024’s bike share referendum, which saw what was for a referendum tremendous turnout. In a year when the only other referendum, the Food Accessibility Initiative, failed to gain enough votes to meet quorum, the bike share referendum passed with tremendous support.

The bike share campaign was a long and very public one, with student activists pushing the measure through at every step of the referendum process. The referendum’s supporters had over a year to promote their position on the referendum.

The MSU’s election rules limit campaigning to a set period prior to referenda, to ensure fairness. McMaster bike share was able to work around this because the process of gathering signatures — which the bike share needed as a student initiated referendum — did not violate the campaigning rules. Without this extra campaign period the bike share referendum might not have succeeded in getting the necessary 10 per cent voter turnout for a referendum to be valid.

The alternative however, was demonstrated in the failure of the Food Security Initiative, initiated by President Popovic. Campaigning was limited to a brief period prior to the referendum and without ample time to inform and excite students, not enough turned out.

While the strict campaign period makes sense for the election of student representatives, as it is important that those elections be competitive and that each candidate be given a fair chance, referenda are not competitions. Limiting elected representatives' allowed time to communicate with their constituents for or against a referendum is not an effective way to encourage student democracy.

Simply informing students of a referendum shortly before the voting period without much opportunity to inspire them to take action appears to be an ineffective way of increasing political participation. If our best examples of democratic culture rely on motivating students through positive messaging — whether that be the platforms of promising presidential candidates or the potential benefits of passing a referendum — it may be time to reconsider how we allow students to be informed about their student union's initiatives.

Students need more freedom to actively and effectively participate in their student government on their often limited schedule. Empowering students and our political representatives to promote their initiatives actively will empower student democracy.