Voluntary Student Membership

Ooh hell yeah I could sink my teeth into this one, but I'm pressed for time and Mum wants jobs done, so it sufficeth for the time being: Be vary wary of VSM (Voluntary Student Membership) campaigners. Like the latest bile dripping forth... Student Choice. I'd be interested to find out how many students they have working for them. Full time. Enrolled. In attendance. Genuine. Students. Also of interest would be the number of card-carrying political 'animals', to quote one incoming AUSA president whose name begins with Greg Langton, present in the organisation. At least with CSM, you know what their interest is. They want compulsory so that they have a stronger voice and can get more stuff done. But with VSM, I doubt that someone is that pissed off at having to pay $140 or something at the beginning of the year, that they would form a group and campaign madly and perjoratively to stop everyone else ever having to go through that, out of the goodness of their hearts. On the face of it, you have to wonder what drives VSM? Egalitarian fiscal restraint that must be spread across New Zealand? I'll admit I wasn't impressed in first year having to pay the membership fees when I saw it on the invoice. Now though, it's free. Plus, I know what AUSA actually does. Also, it's free. Additionally, it's free. Did I mention that it's free? If you are bent on conspiracy theories, ok. CSM is driven by unions. Whoopee. Unions in NZ are weak, by international standards. Unions are hardly in a position to carry out rolling strikes across the country and cripple the economy (not to mention that it's illegal). Unions are primarily concerned with their own industry, I would suspect that the left-leaning student politicians that enter the industrial union movement would be hyperactive hares in terms of relative enthusiasm levels inside the movement and outside. Student politics is high-energy and the politicians are highly enthusiastic (even if the other students aren't), and that continues, even after the one year. Point? Unions are hardly the spectre of doom the far right would paint them to be, and except for the few unions with reasonably active youth networks, half of them probably DGARA about student politics. Conspiracy theory for VSM: driven by McDonalds, Coke, and Nike. In an international effort designed to wipe out trade and student unions, these multinats are combing with local nats to smash the union movement in little old NZ. More realistically (for a conspiracy theory, yeah), pick out your favourite right-wing think-tank, publication or political party that is struggling to bear the weight of its own hide and has difficulty being frank about things (to digress, stopping other parliamentarians jumping through loopholes is a name-and-shame game delightfully executed by the active leader of this party, with the support of his brownie spokesman, a particularly cheeky whitie, for the affairs of the brown. Breath.), and no doubt would love to see the destruction of NZUSA's raison d'etre, and we have a much more credible sponsor of VSM. I believe that some VSM campaigners don't give a damn about student politics or voice, that they hide behind the rhetoric of free choice, and freedom of association in order to weaken the student voice at local and national level. I believe that these particular campaigners have vested interests in destroying compulsory membership and therefore in all likeliness a crippled student voice, in that there are right wing influences funding and dictating their tactics. I'll accept that (at least in Auckland) CSM seems to have done itself few favours in the past with travel junkets and self-serving freebies, but if you don't like what they're doing, get up there and change it. Students are much more vulnerable scattered and without a voice. Under voluntary, they cease to be student 'associations' and become interest groups with a mandate of the 5% or so students that exhibit the slightest salience about what goes on in the bigger picture. A very good read here from Critic. I ask, what point is there in destroying student politics? To suggest that student associations should cease to exist because [accepting the invalid conclusion that low voter turnout equates low support to for student associations] students don't want them to exist is laughable. Just because we might have a low opinion of MPs, doesn't mean that we actually want to destroy the representative system. Why? We lose our representation and [albeit limited] ability to influence the laws that govern our lives. Why is that bad? Because the wealthy, the business owners and educated would then gain ascendancy and install self-serving power arrangements through legislation or societal or economic coercion. And why is this bad? The majority (the poor and/or sick, migrants, unemployed, minorities et al) then lose and are eternally screwed until the system is reformed. So I say that it is irrational to say that student associations should be abolished because of low turnout. Low turnout alone is not a reflection on the effectiveness, integrity, salience or relevance of student associations. We wouldn't get rid of MPs, so why get rid of student politicians? While it's comforting to see increased coverage of student politics around the place, it is also slightly worrying to observe the rise of organisations based around VSM. Many students can't be arsed with organisations or clubs, and as always, it is those who care, who get involved. Politics is a game that is played and won by the active, spurned and lost by the inactive. United we stand, divided we fall. More later, after exams. [Didn't understand? Tell me, and I'll try spelling it out without the metaphors and entendres.]