Most of you are probably aware that NUS is currently conducting a review of its democratic decision making structures. Such a review could provide an opportunity to strengthen and enhance NUS democracy. However, I am unfortunately forced to raise deep concerns about both the content of the proposals being pushed by the NUS leadership and by the process through which it is proposed to introduce these changes – specifically that the proposals be voted on not by annual conference but at an extra-ordinary conference in November.

Pushing through ill thought out changes without adequate debate.

Instead of allowing annual conference in April to consider these changes – with adequate time for debate and discussion throughout the entire student movement – the NUS leadership has chosen to attempt to push these decisions through at an extra-ordinary conference in November. An NUS extra-ordinary conference is an extremely undemocratic event when compared to NUS annual conference. There is no requirement for students' unions to hold elections to decide their delegates and many students will be unable to attend as the event will be held during term time. Previous NUS extraordinary conferences have been around half the size of annual conference.

If the NUS leadership was in any way serious about genuine improvements to its decision making structures it would not be afraid to submit its proposals to full consideration and democratic debate by the movement as a whole.

There are a many areas of the NUS governance review that are of major concern.

Worryingly, the proposals include:

Replacing the current NEC with an NUS Board

It is proposed that this NUS board would continue to be responsible for many of the most important decisions in NUS such as strategic planning, the development of budgets and estimates and legal and human resources policies.

The NUS board would not reflect the diversity of the student movement in the way that the current NEC does. It would not include guaranteed representation of the NUS Liberation campaigns that ensure that oppressed and under-represented groups have a voice at the highest level in the student movement. Nor would it include the current Block of 12 which is elected by proportional representation to ensure that political religious and cultural plurality is reflected at all levels in the student movement.

The current part-time officer positions would be abolished. While it is proposed to retain a Block element elected by conference on the new NUS Senate/National council these will simply be voting members of a wider body lacking the powers, influence and campaigning role of the current NEC.

In a complete break with the idea of an autonomous, student led movement it is proposed that the new Board will include 3-6 non-student members.

It is proposed that while a new NUS Senate (an extended national council) could scrutinise some of the board's decisions its members would be entirely unaccountable. Currently, all members of the NUS NEC are also members of national council and national conference where they can be held to account for their actions and subject to votes of no-confidence or censure; they are also required to report in various ways. Such provisions should be strengthened to improve accountability; however, no such provisions exist in the current proposals.

Eroding the democracy of NUS conference

A number of the proposals would make NUS conference or as it is to be renamed 'congress' less democratic than it is at present.

It is proposed to end the compulsory requirement to hold cross campus ballots to elect delegates. While it is unclear what exactly would replace the current system of requiring students' unions to hold cross campus ballots it can be expected to adversely affect the diversity and make up of conference. Often Black students, minority groups and those representing minority political opinions are elected in the face of fierce opposition from their students' union executives because they are supported by significant numbers of students.

It is also proposed that delegation sizes will be significantly reduced for many universities – further disadvantaging minority groups and views and undermining the representative nature of annual conference.

It is also proposed to reduce the ability of conference to shape and debate NUS policy. Instead of the current system whereby NUS policy is submitted by students' unions, composited and then debated on conference floor policy will be presented in the form of 'policy reports' with only limited opportunity for conference to make amendments. These will be drawn up by undemocratic, unrepresentative 'Zone events'. As these will be small events made up of probably unelected delegates they cannot possibly develop policy that represents the diverse needs and views of all students. Combined with this it is proposed that the time allocated at conference to debate policy will be significantly curtailed.

Over the coming weeks students, activists, officers and students' unions will be considering the implications of these proposals. I believe that they will make NUS less rather than more democratic.

If you would like to discuss any of these issues further please don't hesitate to contact me on ruqs@nus.org.uk.

The Blogs on this site represent the individual views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or practices of the National Union of Students.

All links in blogs will open in a new browser window.

The permanent URL for this specific blog entry is: http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/ruqayyahcollector/274845.aspx