Is ASUO Embracing Proto-Authoritarian Tactics? A Student's Perspective on the Winter Special Election

Now, this might seem like a lofty claim against a body of student representatives at a single university. Not much power in being a member of student government, but still more than you'd probably be comfortable with. Today, to my disappointment, I have learned of the latest failure of the ASUO student government to uphold student democracy. A special winter election is to take place this upcoming Monday and Tuesday and almost no effort around visibility has been made. Historically low voter turnout and stringent campaigning rules raise eyebrows, prompting a closer look at the democratic principles being upheld. Or more accurately, being usurped. All this considered, it is not shocking to learn that most students don't even know this election is happening. And that isn't an accident. This special election’s ballot consists of only two measures, takes place over only TWO days, and features some of the strictest campaigning rules of any ASUO election. But why? And who? And how does that make them authoritarian? 

The key markers of a proto authoritarian:  proto authoritarian is like a precursor or early stage of authoritarianism, displaying authoritarian features without fully embodying them. Characterized by the rejection of democracy and political plurality. It involves the use of strong central power to maintain the political status quo, often at the expense of reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting. A specific characteristic that fits the student government's actions is minimizing political mobilization and voting. 

Well, the behavior that ASUO has demonstrated in oppressing student knowledge and ability to participate in an already indirect democratic process is highlighted by shortened voting periods and lack of visibility. Normal time frames for ASUO elections are more than 3x longer than the time allocated for this winter election. Additionally, ASUO gave neither the students nor the student organization for which funding is on the line, proper forewarning that this measure would appear on the ballet. Not to mention that this election's campaigning period is during midterms, a disservice to students' voices and our election integrity. Both tactics which limit voter participation, a common theme seen in authoritarian regimes. The precedent this sets, even if only at the school government level, is disturbing considering the position our country finds itself in with the upcoming presidential election. We represent the young voters, our voices are more important now than ever, what does it say about our elected student body that our voices are not their priority? What does it say that elections and democracy are not their priority?

It says they need to be checked. 

The need for checks and balances becomes apparent when our democratic institutions are compared against the student equivalent. External checks, such as nonprofits or public interest groups, can amplify voices when votes are suppressed. Ironically, the second measure on the winter ballot aims to dismantle our on-campus version of such a check. The Oregon student public interest research group. 

The information I gathered today while talking with the “Vote No on 2” campaign was concerning and I encourage everyone to look into exactly how referendum funding works and what the student public interest group does. Essentially, referendum exists as an external, direct check that students have on the student governments funding allocation. Student groups which use referendum funding participate in the most pure direct democracy in the sense that if you do not like what they are doing on campus, you can ask them for the portion of your tuition back that went to their funding. This is similar to how PIRGs in our larger democracy do not get their funding from the government but from the public whose interest it represents. For ASUO to destroy Oregon's only student PIRGs external funding mechanism is to consolidate the financial decision making power in only the hands of the ASUO chairs, eliminating the last direct participation students have in the process. 

Transparency has been notably lacking in this election, considering the significance of the measure. For such an important measure, you would think they would want as much student participation as possible, but this election has been almost secretive and rushed. The decisions these student leaders have made when given the power and the opportunity concern me, are these the people who will one day be in our congress and senate? Is this the standard of representation they expect to be held to? The best thing we as students can do is HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. And vote. 

As students, our responsibility lies in holding our leaders accountable and exercising our right to vote for the sake of our campus and future leaders.