Reviewing SU democratic structures
All the things to think about – and the pitfalls to avoid – when you review your democracy.
Recording coming soon
Hosted by
Jim Dickinson
Associate Editor (SUs), Wonkhe
Drawing on 25 democratic reviews, we look at why so many SUs review their structures and why so many reviews quietly fail. We separate democracy from representation, match different democratic functions to different decisions, and confront the uncomfortable truth that democratic reviews so often apply structural fixes to cultural problems. Expect the legal essentials of the Education Act 1994, models worth stealing, and a hard look at the Student Council that won't die.
In this session
What we cover
- Why everyone keeps reviewing – and why redrawing structures rarely lasts if the culture underneath doesn't change.
- What it isn't about – not sabbs, elections or boards, but how the whole union decides and who really gets a say.
- The Education Act 1994 essentials – fair and democratic operation, a five-yearly constitution, secret ballots and the two-year cap.
- Democracy by function – representative, deliberative, direct and participatory, and matching the type to the decision.
- Representation isn't democracy – winning an election gives you representation; democracy is what happens between elections.
- A single community? – why planning for "one imagined community" fails the many overlapping groups SUs actually serve.
- Ideas are not policies – the "you said, we heard, we understood, we think, we did" discipline.
- The model that won't die – why 87% of SUs still run a Student Council, and what it carries with it.
- What good looks like – Leeds Beckett's shift to community organising, and bonding, bridging and linking.
- Models worth stealing – Finland's TREY, Scandinavian policy inquiries, deliberative juries, and redesigning the culture, not just the structure.