We, as Americans, do not question the proposition that democracy is the best form of government. After all, America is a democracy, and we are the best country in the world (save Libya). American Idol is a democracy, and it is the best show on television (save Charm School 3). But is democracy, specifically in the form of the Associated Student Government (ASG) senate, still effective and desirable as an outlet for student-led change at Miami? Without significant change in student apathy toward senate, the goals of ASG would be more efficiently and effectively attained with the senate's dissolution. 

Associated Student Government, under the leadership of Student Body President Jonathan McNabb, is developing a set of goals for Miami's next four years, as well as a check list of objectives for this year to help reach those long-term goals. I am a huge fan of McNabb; his work on reforming the funding process for student organizations was remarkable. The strategies for improving student life are both ambitious and apt. Yet I would trust ASG's ability to enact meaningful change more without the shackle of a squabbling senate. As someone who has never been in senate (like the rest of you), but someone who follows ASG closely in The Student (unlike the rest of you), I do not view senate as a mechanism of either qualitative or quantitative positive change. Nor have they worked as a catalyst. Ignoring the merits of checks and balances we learned in eighth grade, a strong executive would, in the absence of senate, allow ASG to function better. The executive cabinet is, after all, paid more than $44,000 to produce results. 

So let us consider what the effect of dropping the senate would be. Constituencies would lose their voice, although it is delusional to maintain that they have a voice currently. The apathy of students toward ASG has stymied most of that voice, the remainder quenched by the senators' disinterest in actively seeking out student opinion or disseminating ASG issues to their constituents (obviously the latter would be easier if the senate did not spend substantial amounts of time debating their own rules for debating their own rules). Having only the executive would not prohibit students' ability to contact student government; McNabb's cell phone number is on the ASG website. 

Suppose though that the system of representation is not broken. A senator brings forth a resident's complaint that, say, the Recreational Sports Center should have longer hours on weekends. Does the senate have the power to enact change? Truthfully, the administration of the university has no impetus to accept senate policy recommendations with which it disagrees. Convenient, justified ideas can come to fruition but are not necessarily evidence of a successful senate (that is, Vice President Adam Harris can lobby administrators as effectively as a senate bill can compel them). Without any real election mandate or the potential of a charged student body, the senate has no leverage in disputes with the administration. 

Maybe there is inherent value in training Miami students to be good citizens who participate in civil society and elections? If there were, it would again require that students be willing and active participants in ASG elections, which they are not. Those who care enough to vote for ASG off-campus senators are not more likely to vote for Congress because of the senate elections experience. 

Still the most harrowing aspect of deleting senate would be the loss of capable stock for the various councils under the auspices of ASG, such as Diversity Affairs Council or Campus Activities Council. Though generally one can serve on either of these councils without being a senator, and senators more likely became senators not to join these councils, but to make friends, resumes and a difference (difficult because they are on senate).  

Despite my arguing that the non-existence of senate would not leave us worse off in any significant way, I do not advocate its actual disposal. While not a cure-all, senate must increase its credibility and soft power by addressing student apathy. It does not matter if my assessment of the senate's record is inexact, because my perception of it is in line with popular student perception. I don't know how ASG can fix student indifference (McNabb probably does), but for anyone to get something out of the senate beyond the senators and for senate's sake, they have to. I hope McNabb and his team can successfully achieve all of their goals this year, and also that senate will not hamper the process. In the meantime, senate has to restore itself as being student-first (senators as students does not count), because McNabb leaves at the end of the year and the established status quo is insufficient to achieve those lofty goals. 

Brett Schneider schneiba@muohio.edu