Two weeks ago, the National Union of Students held its annual conference in Gateshead where NUS policy was set and full time officers, including new president Liam Burns, were elected. Unless you were one of the handful of delegates sent to represent over 28,000 University of Edinburgh students, you had no say in the future of the body which claims to represent you.

The main problem with the current delegate system can be demonstrated with one statistic – out of over 5 million members of the NUS, only about 450 directly voted for Liam Burns to become president. The NUS was described by Aaron Porter as “literally the most democratic institution in the world". The figures say otherwise. Liam Burns, much like his oft-derided predecessor, Porter, will strive to represent one of the largest unions in the United Kingdom without the explicit backing of 99.99% of NUS members. When you factor in that the delegates themselves were likely elected by a small minority of students from their own universities and colleges, the problems with democracy in the NUS are further compounded.

The issue goes beyond sheer numbers. The skewed demographics of the NUS do little to represent the students as a whole. Less than a quarter of members are university students, with the remainder made of college, sixth form students and smaller groups. However, the vast majority of delegates come from a university background, leaving large swathes of students under-represented. All groups of students have their level of infl uence in the NUS unfairly distorted, and some groups such as apprentices have no delegates at all, silencing their voice in the union. 

 Due to the undemocratic roots of the NUS, the unheard majority have little means to hold ‘elected’ representatives responsible for their actions. There are little to no lines of direct communication between the top of the NUS and the bottom, with basic information such as offi  cers’ e-mail addresses either obscured or unavailable. How can ordinary students constructively make their opinions heard without a channel to do so?

The NUS Executive does not rely on the backing of the majority of students and thus cannot be truly held accountable to them. This does nothing but incubate resentment and frustration among certain groups of students. Aaron Porter has become as much a pariah of the anti-cuts movement as David Cameron or Nick Clegg, largely due to unaccountability and unresponsiveness. The NUS ended up, in Porter’s own words, “dithering” over the wave of occupations and protests at the end of last year. Without a legitimate forum for newly politicised students to engage with their union, disenfranchisement quickly followed, leading to the sorry sight of Aaron Porter being hounded through the streets by the people he should be representing.

But what can be done to make the NUS more democratic? A One Member One Vote (OMOV) system would allow all members to shape the direction of the Union and the student movement as a whole. By giving democratic ownership of the NUS to the wider student population, NUS leaders will have a stronger mandate to fight for the genuine interests of students during an unprecedented attack on the principles of open higher and further education. OMOV does come with problems – encouraging students nationwide to engage with the NUS and ensure a decent turnout would be difficult, as would ensuring the security of votes. But any turnout above one per cent would be an improvement over the current situation. 

 Liam Burns has promised to “set up a commission to come back with recommendations to our next conference”, but has also indicated his disapproval of OMOV. It’s true that the wheels of student politics turn slowly and are resistant to change. However, without reforms of the current untenable system, the student movement looks in danger of grinding to a halt or abandoning the Union entirely.  As it stands, the head of the NUS is disconnected from its body, and any complaints about this go largely unheard. The strength of a union should lie in its members, not in an unfairly elected and often self-serving elite. If the NUS wishes to lead a strong and united student movement, it must turn over power to the students themselves.