Last week, everywhere in the university, there were candidates trying to convince you to vote for them. Probably some students didn’t know that they could vote for new members of the university council and faculty councils until a passionate candidate approached them—only to get their vote.
The electoral system is largely unknown, and that voter might not be aware of the fact that each candidate has their own agenda, normally aligned with their party. Indeed, voters do not necessarily know at all the many parties there are or that you can vote for both faculty and university council elections. The lack of information among the voters, the students, makes the elections an irrational race between candidates to see who is better positioned and more insistent. It little matters whether their proposals are more popular or they are better suited to democratically represent students; voters’ choice is mostly determined by which candidate approached them first.
Flawed system
The system is flawed: it does not meet some key requirements of every liberal democracy, as voters being rational agents whose informed participation influences accountable institutions. Despite not being illiberal (the UM allows rational, free discussions), it is non-liberal since it neither recognizes voters as rational agents, providing them space to discuss and be informed, nor remains accountable the whole year.
There is not enough information about how to vote, the electoral system, or the actual importance of the elections; that task is delegated to parties whose interests are not to educate but to win, and thus it is never done. Maybe candidate 1 of party X stops you and explains the party positions; you are convinced and vote for candidate 1 of party X. However, even agreeing with that party, perhaps candidate 5 is more aligned with your own views, and if you had had the information, you would have voted for candidate 5 of party X. Or, perhaps, you would have even voted for a different party.
Too little debate
No one explains how the system truly works, and there are almost no debates among candidates to actually compare and get to know them. You choose without information, not rationally, and are treated as a mean to get a vote. The lack of substantial discussion between candidates reinforces the dynamic. One should praise the debate between parties running for the university council, while acknowledging that it is not enough. First, because you vote for candidates, not only for parties. And second, because there is nothing similar at a faculty level. Moreover, it is to be noted that the event is organized by a student newspaper (The Maastricht Diplomat) and the University Council, not directly by the Maastricht University itself. This questions the commitment of the university to ensure democratic participation.
Not enough accountability
And not only is it about participation but also accountability. Throughout the year, the performance of those who were elected and of all the councils in general remains largely unnoticed by voters. Rational voting cannot happen due to systemic absence of information. And the lack of democratic oversight does not only reinforce that dynamic but also makes the whole system undemocratic. Students should be aware of what is going on in the decision-making system, not only to vote but also for the sake of democracy. It is not only about an abstract concept, but a low student’s involvement also is detrimental for the university as such. For instance, UM’s biggest weakness in the Times Higher Education ranking is precisely how students perceive education and teaching. Were they more involved, that could be a completely different story. It is a paradox that the UM claims to be ‘the’ liberal university when failing to be truly democratic.
Maialen Iglesias Alfageme, FASoS-student and candidate for NovUM in the last university elections