The success of the Quebec students’ strike has student leaders from all across the country asking the same question, “Can we do here what they did there?” The leaders of the Quebec student strike certainly seem to think so, and have organized tours throughout Canada, and more recently the Maritimes, to share their blueprint for a successful student revolution. Here in our humble little college, containing perhaps the most progressive students’ union in the province, our leaders are certainly listening to what their Quebecois counterparts have to say.
The element of the Québecois’ message which rings truest to our Nova Scotian ears, is that we must reform our unions if we are to have any real chance of effecting change on post secondary education in Nova Scotia. These reforms would see our unions make a majority of their decisions at General Assemblies rather than the executive level, with all members having equal voting rights. General Assemblies are considered to have played a key role in ensuring that students adhered to the strike in Quebec, and that such actions were seen to be the legitimate will of the student body. However if we truly wish to emulate the student movement in Quebec, we must reconsider the governing principles behind the King’s Students’ Union.
The current constitution of the King’s Students’ Union seeks to responsibly devolve power from the entire membership to continually smaller groups of people, all the while insisting on the strictest bylaws to enshrine positions to their written mandates. Our system is by nature conservative, ordered and British. By contrast, the governing structures of students’ unions in Quebec refuse to devolve power, and a heavy dependency on student participation replaces our dependency on bylaws. Their system is socialist, anarchic and French.
If we as a union decide to adopt the Quebec model of governance, we must do so with our eyes open and our feet firmly grounded. There can be no hybrid model between our liberal constitution and a socialist one. Two divergent paths are open before us, and we must pick between the two and do so decisively. Now is not the time for half measures or compromise, and if a nasty debate is what we need to gain clarity on this matter, then let it be so.
David Etherington