Student politics is widely viewed as a vehicle for activism, a stance one cannot help but question when the last five CUSU presidential elections have been contested by four candidates or fewer. There seems a strange paradox in Cambridge student politics, whereby the student body relate strongly to issues on campus and beyond, but favour approaches more expressive than substantive.

Varsity asked students from Cambridge, Oxford and universities across the world for their thoughts on the significance of small-scale political engagement at their institutions. “I’m not convinced student politics forges intellect or challenges opinions,” wrote Tim, a second year Economics and Law student at the University of Sydney, “but it does build bread and butter political skills like getting numbers, learning to interact with voters and manoeuvring through personal politics.”

The figures reveal a telling lack of engagement. In the 2016 Cambridge University Students’ Union and Graduate Union Main Elections, 3,415 of an eligible 21,714 votes were cast. The Lent 2015 elections were largely the same, with 3,475 of an eligible 21,527 students contributing. While the relatively high proportion of students who voted to Re-Open Nominations may suggest reason for abstinence, it remains questionable whether such figures reflect disagreement with the policies of those running, or simply represent disillusionment with the system as a whole.

In 2016, Eireann Attridge ran uncontested for the position of CUSU Access and Funding Officer, a trend observed at the JCR and MCR level too. At the 2016 Peterhouse JCR elections, the positions of President and Amals (Amalgamated Clubs) President were both uncontested. At the Churchill College MCR elections this term, 92 students voted from a student body of 428. The presidency was contested by only two students, and the role of General Secretary was uncontested.

It is interesting to consider the extent to which voting patterns change when issues rather than positions are at stake. Last term, Selwyn voted to remain affiliated with CUSU by an overwhelming majority of 83.72 per cent. Just 38 per cent of students voted. In the Corpus Christi CUSU re-affiliation vote, 46.6 per cent of eligible voters engaged in the process, 77.1 per cent of whom voted to remain disaffiliated from CUSU. Peterhouse’s question “Should Peterhouse JCR remain a member of CUSU, or leave CUSU?” saw 151 votes cast, representing a turnout of 59 per cent. It was yet another contentious issue, with students voting 93-58 for their JCR to retain ties with CUSU.

The results of our discussions with students from Marburg to MIT revealed stark similarities between Cambridge and its international counterparts. Of the students we spoke to, 90.9 per cent of whom were undergraduates, 63.6 per cent said that they had voted in a student election. Yet 54.5 per cent admitted to being “unaware” of their student political leaders, unable to identify them or at least vaguely outline their policy stances.

When asked how highly contested student elections were at their institution, a student from Finland noted that “about 20 per cent of the students of our university vote in the election in which we choose the council or representatives… and this year they almost did not have enough people to form the board of the student union.”

Varsity asked students why they thought positions in student politics were desired, or undesired. CV bulking and career groundwork were seen as the primary reasons for official involvement in student politics. An Oxford student commented: “I haven’t been to that many student politics events. My experience was that there were so many members more concerned with starting their own political careers that it was impossible to talk to anyone without hearing about the next election they were running in and how they’d like you to vote for them!”

This view was also professed by those on the inside, with one student, currently a councillor for their University’s Student Representative Council, telling Varsity: “I’ve met a good many student political hacks that go to sleep dreaming of a seat in cabinet. (Yours truly shamelessly included on that list).”

Another German student, however, provided some interesting scope, arguing that self-interest and desires to lay building blocks for one’s career aren't necessarily negative reasons for seeking involvement, because “that is what our society needs right now - young motivated ambitious leaders.”

Oxford’s large lists of political alumni were deemed “self-perpetuating”, while a Human, Social and Political Science fresher at Cambridge gave an incredibly honest response when questioned about her knowledge of Cambridge’s political alumni: “Isaac Newton. Not sure.”

While a number of students maintained that student political leaders lack the capacity to do anything more than merely criticise decisions beyond their control, postgraduate lawyer David offered a refreshing angle: “Students always actively demand to be heard. Maybe we just need to listen a little differently.”

Analysis: The paradox of student politics

The results of Varsity’s study suggest that students now tend towards engaging with ideas organically, rather than turning to official institutional frameworks to effect change.

“The student environment has been dulled by the inclusion of a great lifestyle with free Wi-Fi, great resources, supportive networks and the most easily defined path towards getting a tertiary degree”, wrote Australian interviewee Jacob. “Where Stupol was once seen as a domain through which solutions could be delivered, there are no longer any problems that can’t be solved by university administrators, the internet or self-help strategies.”

Decreasing belief in the efficacy of student political organisations can be attributed to a change in the nature of politics itself over time, rather than passivity invoked by an increasingly strong - but by no means faultless - relationship between student and institution. The term “post-truth” was thrown around so much in 2016 that it was named the Oxford English Dictionary’s ‘Word of the Year’, fitting in a world where engagement in conceptual politics is high but practical involvement is lacking.

This is not to say that there is no longer a need for CUSU, political societies, or JCRs and MCRs. There is simply a need to recalibrate student politics as an operative and updated vehicle for activism.

Furthermore, it is also argued that a rise in expressive politics is damaging, leading to the development of the ‘pack’ political mentality, whereby, in the words of a Cambridge interviewee, “it’s cool to be Communist but anything vaguely conservative is recognised as the anti-Christ.” 

All issues aside, student voices will always need an outlet. What form this outlet takes in order to be successful is up to us.