Student politics

I refer to the letter by members of the University Chaplaincy team (The Sunday Times, May 18), in which they congratulated the new KSU "on their new project of co-operation". I fully agree with them that this is a sign of good will and a "bold step" towards ensuring better representation on the KSU executive. This initiative was indeed a breath of fresh air in student politics. With SDM and Pulse dominating the scene, the distinction between party politics and student politics had become too fine.

Before Id f'Id Ghalik was formed, the only possible way of being on the KSU executive was to join a political group. There were only two posts for which independent candidates or candidates backed by other non-political organisations could contest: those of chairpersons of KSU's two commissions, who automatically become members of the executive.

I, for one, was elected two years ago to the KSU executive through the Education Commission and I had not asked for the backing of SDM, who are usually "accused" of controlling the KSU elections. Actually, I contested that election against a candidate who was an SDM member. Even though only two out of the 11 members of the committee were not elected on behalf of SDM, I can say that we worked as a team, and in my year at least the executive never followed any specific political agenda.

The main problem with student politics over the past years has been its unnecessary association with party politics, real or perceived. By its very nature, the Students' Council is not a sort of parliament with a government and an opposition. A Students Council represents and defends the interests of the student body, and contributes to the development of the University, since students are major stakeholders of this institution.

There should be enough space for young people to involve themselves in politics, at University and beyond. Even though they never ceased to be a major attraction for students with political aspirations (and why not?), student representation and student politics are not there to merely serve the whims of budding politicians.

This is why the presence of independent student leaders and representatives, who have no party agenda, helps to ensure that the interests of students, and of our University at large, are safeguarded and promoted. Just because it is assumed that 40 per cent of University students follow a social-democrat (i.e. Labourite) ideology and the other 60 per cent are pro-Nationalist - which anyway is not the case - it does not mean that proper representation is achieved by having these percentages reflected in the composition of KSU.

To have real representation on the council, there need not be a balance between Nationalist and Labour supporters. Students are best represented when the council is made up of people from a wide range of courses and with experience in different organisations. The team of Id f'Id Ghalik meets these requirements.

It is a pity that in your issue of May 25 the president of Pulse, the Social Democrat student organisation, preferred to use such words as "gimmicks", which were totally uncalled for. Whichever way one sees it, the initiative taken by Id f'Id Ghalik was a direly needed change in student politics, which many students welcome wholeheartedly.

To the dismay of some, the greatest gain of this initiative was that of depoliticising KSU elections. No organisation, just because it associates itself with a political party, should expect to have the right to form part of such a team. All organisations should work hard to gain the trust of others if they want to be part of the game.

I do not think that Pulse was "left out" of the team for political reasons. It is more likely that most of the other organisations had some problems working with someone who has sometimes discredited and insulted them by calling them "puppets" or "acolytes". Such comments work against an organisation with such high expectations.

I do not exclude that future initiatives similar to Id f'Id Ghalik could include members of Pulse, and in principle there is no reason why they should not. To be up to it, however, Pulse has to pull its socks up. A good way of starting would be a revision of their PR (no pun meant!) strategy, in order to avoid unnecessary hostility such as that expressed in the May 25 letter.

In the meantime, I join the Chaplaincy team in their hope that the new KSU will work hard to instil a greater sense of participation and solidarity among University students. I wish them all the best of success.

Finally, the Chaplaincy team's interest in the need for fair representation of students on campus is praiseworthy. Even though I did not always agree with certain ideas expressed on this issue, I encourage them to keep up their sterling work. Their efforts should serve as an example for others on campus.

The team of Id f'Id Ghalik meets these requirements. As a former high-ranking official of Pulse recently wrote on the electronic media, this team has the "potential to prove a new policy of inclusiveness and of change".