Annicia GayleGregory Roberts, Contributor
Student politics on the Mona campus of the University of the West Indies (UWI) has once more come up for discussion.
Commentators are of the view that significant changes are afoot as far as student politics on the Mona campus is concerned.
We will seek to assess
The dominant elements of Campus politics.
Those factors that have influenced or precipitated change.
The extent of change and the emergence of a new culture, and
Whither goes campus politics.
It is hoped that this treatise will provoke further discussion on what clearly is symptomatic of a change in the political culture of our society.
Since the creation of the Guild of Undergraduates in 1954, the leadership has been seen as a fair training ground for future leaders of the Caribbean.
The elitist origins of the UWI, as it was appendaged to the University of London and modelled off the British in every way, gave good reason for this expectation.
One of the driving features of the time was that the university was basically a residential institution. Students who wanted to live off campus had to satisfy the university authorities as to the wholesomeness of the reasons presented.
All activities of the campus revolved around the halls of residence. The early practices were imported from boarding schools around the country and adapted to a tertiary level.
In no small way, many of what is regarded as hall tradition is little more than practices that high school boarders dreamt of doing once they were free of dorm masters and mistresses.
The early constitution of the student body could not have had much appreciation for students living off campus. Incredibly, its revision was never carried out in a real way until 1996, some 42 years later!
Hall dominance
The dominance of the halls over the years can be easily seen. This dominance is quite unwieldy given the proportion of students who live in them. Prior to the availability of Preston Hall, the four halls could not accommodate 1,500 students. This number has represented no more than 30 per cent since the mid-eighties.
No presidential candidate was able to win without the significant support of at least two halls of residence. If we were to judge dominance on the basis of which hall the president comes from, then Chancellor Hall, with a maximum student capacity of less than 300, has held a most disproportionate level of power.
In the years 1988-2000, only two presidents did not come from Chancellor Hall. And these two did so almost by default.
In the first instance, Chancellor Hall fielded two candidates, and the house being divided against itself fell. In the second, prominent Chancellorites threw their support behind the candidate from Taylor Hall.
Another interesting point is the fact that in the years 1995-99 four of the five presidents came from a single block Block (A).
Aye. This block at no time can accommodate more than 50 students.
In the early days, it could be argued that the ChanSea (Chancellor/Seacole halls), alliance was the key to success in the Guild elections.
The females would characteristically throw their support behind the candidate from their brother hall with few exceptions. Many speak of the "togetherness" of Chancellor, born of intense rivalry between the blocks as well as from the other halls. The trend itself might have helped as well. Many have viewed the hall of the "Lions" (Chancellor), as the "garrison."
Having established the political power of the halls, and in particular Chancellor, we can now turn our attention to looking at the root of power in the hall itself.
The factor, however, that stands out in my mind, is the power of the chairman and the hall committee to influence who gets the few available rooms on the hall. A feature not restricted to Chancellor Hall.
The chairman of the hall often has more power on the ground than the president. Also, many chairmen simply slide into the presidency. This thesis ties in well with the catholic reality that where resources are scarce he who has power to influence distribution holds tremendous clout.
Hence the politics of the Mona campus in my mind can be dubbed "the politics of rooms".
We now turn our attention to the factors that have led to changes in the politics of the campus.
These factors include, but are not limited to:
Shifts in supply and demand The opening of Preston Hall increased the number of rooms on campus by some 400. In the same year of this occurrence - 1995 - the Guild sponsored a transportation service that provided some ease to a significant proportion of the commuting student population. Of great significance also was the proliferation of private motor vehicles that came to adorn the campus.
General increase in apathy -- The demise in the level of interest in student politics among students on campus intensified in the 1990s. The reasons range from globalisation and Gidden's "new individualism" to economic hardship and the semester system.
The charge of partisan politics on the Mona campus This rationale is particularly interesting. The fact is that, as long as universities foment or seek to foment the best minds of a nation, there will be political debates. It would seem then that what is being rejected is a certain type of partisanship. Certainly, it can be argued that the preceding decades saw a high level of partisanship on the Mona campus. Was this not a microcosm of the wider society being played out on the campus?
A change in the composition of the student population Many more mature students are now studying on both full-time and part-time bases. The number of overseas students has decreased significantly over the last ten years. This has impacted on the composition of the halls more than the campus as a whole.
There is clearly a new culture on the campus. It might very well not be foreign to the dominant culture of the society, but for any one who has been away from the campus for a number of years, what obtains now would be vastly different from previously.
The show of affluence is tremendous. The apparent seriousness of students on their way to classes belies a certain level of pressure that would surprise their predecessors. One wonders if there's a masquerade afoot. But then again, even stress is an affliction of the 1990s.
The class of degree and hence the number and strength of grade A are of greater importance in this competitive environment.
There is no assurance of jobs and students are just waking up to the reality that their education is only a tool to be used in the workshops of life.
It is obvious that the transition is not complete but one can bet that each year more students graduate ready to bring to the fore the entrepreneurial spirit that our country needs.
And so, what does all this portend for the politics of the campus?
The two most recent Guild elections saw a rejection of the traditional. The writing was always on the wall.
Yet, the turnout at the polls seems to be heading down. The relevance of the Guild continues to be seriously questioned. The halls have failed to serve those who help to subsidise their existence, namely off-campus students.
The off-campus and commuting students have failed to unite, and it seems impossible in the light of the new doctrine of individualism.
It seems then that, as fewer and fewer students participate, the presidents will ascend to office with great hopes of reconnecting, and trumpets of revival only to depart hoping that they can leave with their "paper".
As the general level of apathy increases, a new minority might very well emerge supported by a "garrison", whether from the halls or not, to dominate.
The thing to do is to watch for that resource which is scarce and see who might control its distribution.
In the meantime, the power of the university administration over the affairs of the student has been greatly bolstered. In the absence of radicalism and, given recent fiascos on campus, the administration is safe.
In the broader scheme of things, should we consider that the Guild is no longer useful in preparing leaders for our societies across the Caribbean, and as such should we be prepared to woo those who have received their training abroad to lead us?
Given the reality of globalisation, the difference might not be worth it.
Gregory Roberts is a consultant on economic and social development. He served as UWI Guild President from 1995-96.
