I have to start the column this week by confessing the complete failure of a project that was (and still is) very close to my heart. I believe that almost 15 years have passed since I resigned from my first post on the executive committee of the university students’ council. I had been elected thanks to a combined block vote of Gozitan, legal and theology students. At the time of my resignation I had described KSU as a bureaucratic dinosaur that had failed to keep up with the times and a growing university.

It was not the KSU of today – it was a bloated council of 25 or more members, most of whom were elected on a not-so-well-kept secret of political block votes (PN or Labour leading naturally). I resigned in disgust at the obvious attempts at political manipulation and clear disregard of student representation, and it would only be a clear reform of the KSU statute that would draw my attention to something promising once again. In fact, shortly after (sometime around 1996, if I am not mistaken), the KSU statute was to undergo a radical (revolutionary, if I may say so) change.

A group of like-minded students had embarked on repolishing the format of one of Malta’s oldest institutions (founded by Sir Arturo Mercieca as the Consiglio Permanente Universitario in 1901) in order to prepare it for the challenges of the 21st century and a larger open university, which was enjoying the first fruits of the open door policy after having shed the infamous numerus clausus. As a law student and dabbler in the arcane arts of political philosophy, I was fascinated by the task and you may say that I dragged my colleagues on the SDM committee into the project. I omit names here for two reasons: one not to offend anyone by leaving them out and secondly for brevity – it should suffice to say that this was not a one-man project.

We argued, we discussed we cut and added and envisioned a body politic that would represent all students and foster their non-academic growth while safeguarding their academic rights. The workshop was a long and hard one but in the end the new baby was born. The new students council would incorporate a number of legal principles – subsidiarity, representation and a system of checks and balances. Above all, the dinosaur was trimmed into what we hoped would be a mean machine executing the policies of representative bodies. I will spare you the mumbo-jumbo but the whole idea was to have a representative commission for educational policy (elected reps from faculties), a representative commission of the different active polities on campus (social policy – nominated from among organisations), and an executive of directly elected individuals based on a purely administrative group of individuals elected on a first-past-the-post system.

We were students so we could be bombastic. It was no sin to be idealistic. This would be our new republic, our Magna Grecia… or maybe not.

Disorder and confusion

What we never counted on was the interest of the PLPN to keep a hand in the ways of the university. It was already hard in my time at SDM to keep at bay those who believed that our duty was to serve the needs of some “mother party”. They were (and still are) all over the place. Raised in a valueless political nursery where the only points of order are on how best to ridicule the opponent and “win” those precious periods in power – without ever knowing what to do with it other than serve as a neutered mouthpiece of the “mother party”.

Neither the PN nor the MLP (at the time) needed to take an active stance in influencing these young Turks preparing to slide up the greasy pole of partisan political advancement. Somehow they felt an obligation that was handed down from generation to generation to mimic their idols in a hopeless fashion. It is useless to mention single incidents over the last 15 years, but it is evident that the urge to prove faithful lapdogs of the party glitterati (and hopefully get a leg-up into the party mainstream) had much more of a pulling factor than the capability to think independently and have a vision of a better future. The zombie tools of the PLPN were nothing more than a mindless rabble programmed to replicate the tribal division devoid of argumentative logic. And it got worse every year.

This year, the events and happenings of my time as a student rep have been bandied about in the press by both sides. I was shocked a couple of days ago (and admittedly temporarily flattered) to read in the Insiter that a candidate for the Moviment Indipendenti suggested in jest that his first act when elected would be to “remove the bust of Gonzi and replace it with the bust of Jacques René Zammit”. First of all, the last time I checked the only Gonzi present in the KSU offices in my time was David, son of Lawrence, for whom I have only words of praise for his remarkable dedication (a Stakhanovist if ever there was one) and overwhelming contribution to our work that year. Secondly, I have no wish whatsoever to have my ugly mug immortalised in marble (unless, of course, the kind of bust they speak of would be a 40D or something of the sort).

Mr Vella, for such is the independent minded person’s name, would probably be surprised to know that the bust in the KSU offices is that of Augustus and was donated to the Consiglio Permanente, together with a standard topped with an owl (gufo – as in gruppo universitario fascista), by a group of very fascist Italian students in the thirties (if I am not mistaken). Let’s leave aside this nostalgic relic and get back to the nitty gritty – so why would an opponent of the (from what I gather) disgust-inducing SDM suddenly joke about putting a bust of yours truly in KSU’s offices?

No one seems to care

Well, the lore has it that “in Jacques René Zammit’s time SDM and Graffitti used to work together”. Apparently, it falls just short of the greatest achievement ever, which is Paul Borg Olivier’s co-option of two Graffitti members to KSU in 1993 (did Graffitti exist in 1993 or was it Alpha 92?). I do not deny that in my time we used to civilly discuss with the likes of Mark Vella, Mike Briguglio and James Debono (there – names). Looking back, I remember a mutual respect when working on common causes or discussing points when we disagreed. If that is some kind of heroic achievement, then do go ahead and erect a commemorative arch on the main campus parking lot. When simple political discussion becomes the stuff of heroes, we really have begun to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

The truth is that SDM and the latest anti-SDM formations are battling over the KSU model for the millionth time. Every year we get someone who argues for proportional representation on the executive council – as though this would be the final solution to end all the shenanigans of misrepresentation. Unfortunately, I have to admit that they are right in one thing: the system will not work because there is no one left who wants it to. They ignore the potential of the current format and battle for perceived power simply for the sake of power.

Those in the executive seats (SDM most of the time) will use the system to hold on to the seats (Sant would call it incumbency) and those out of it will concentrate their energy on the useless gripe. My wager is that even were the system to change we would get an even greater impasse than before. We will have half an executive busy blotting out the other half while the representative commissions suffer the consequences. The struggle is simple – it is the inertia of the national picture inevitably imposing itself on what is left of student politics.

Well I do

I’ve got SDM members facebooking and emailing me trying to get me to disavow any possibility that a Christian-Democrat and leftist movement can work together. They’d probably think that this would win some kind of twisted argument of theirs. Pulse is boycotting the elections (if I understood Tyson’s passionate arrogation of representation of responsible students – by the way Tyson, judging by the comments you left in The Times I’d seriously worry about English becoming the only language at Uni). Now there’s a group of students led by Realtà’s Mark Camilleri running for office as Moviment Indipendenti. If this were Cicero’s Rome, I would be guessing that Mark is running for office to gain immunity from prosecution by the moralitz police – alas it’s only the CPU/SRC/KSU.

Good for Moviment Indipendenti – they’ve spotted an opportunity where there was one and if they do use the exposure Mark has with good sense, they might even get elected. By the way, much as I may have strong emotional ties with SDM, I really dig the electoral campaign poster with a man’s head in the loo. Boo to whoever came up with the idea that this breaks some code of ethics. For crying out loud! All of which does not mean that I have a favourite or preference come next election. I am not a student but, as you can see, I have more than a passing interest in the goings on at university.

Fifteen years ago I believed that university could be a breeding ground for change. I still do. I am here publicly admitting the failure of a project of which I formed a big part. It’s not the end though. If the students involved – from all sides – would care to pause for a second and assess their priorities they might find that they are still in time to better my colleagues and me on this one. Yes, KSU needs to be reformed (again). It is important that this reform is made by the students for the students. One that recognises the potential of representation and participation. One that says Yes We Can and believes it to be much more than a catchy slogan.

Rather than look at their “elders” and “role models” and do their damnedest to mimic them and erect comedic busts and virtual monuments for them, students should be getting busy plotting to overturn the hopeless ways we inherit from the PLPN system. They should take their fate in their own hands and become role model themselves. Yes, they could do it like the SDMs and Graffittis of 15 years ago – by agreeing to disagree and building on compromise (just look at the KSU Memorandum to Political Parties for the 1996 Election for what I boast as our master document of that year – second only to the Stipends Report for Reform). Hopefully, they get to go one better and actually bring about the necessary adjustments in a system that is crying for change.

I could be wrong now, but I don’t think so

I have to apologise if you are a regular reader but not too much into student politics. It has taken up most of the article but, believe me, it had to be done. I wanted to write about the university decision to ditch Maltese (agreed but partly – I think it would be better to insist on obligatory English grammar courses in the first year). I wanted to discuss how “guilt by association” has now reached papal proportions (shame on the free-shooting press) and how Plategate is actually distorting the public appreciation of the value of a system of rule of law (visit J’accuse for more of that). Unfortunately, I ran out of words before I even knew it.

So it will have to be the blog for a more detailed analysis of the above and more. I am off to Brussels this week for the launching of a blogging competition. J’accuse returns to Th!inkabout it! and we are looking forward to the ride. A message to fellow students from whatever side of the current barricades: think different – and you’d be surprised how much more rewarding your time on campus will be. (Ok. Ok. Not so fellow) Fifteen years ago? Why does that make me feel so darned old!

www.akkuza.com will start to focus on the Developing World among other things from next week. Remember an old geezer once said “the ideal democratic palace is made up of all the people” (Rafael Caldera).

Subheading inspiration: It’s a Jungle Out There (Randy Newman) – from the TV Series Monk

This article and accompanying Bertoon appear in today’s edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.