Reader’s Mail
One debate that persists among student activists is that of remuneration for general assembly presidiums. It is time to face the truth: this practice should be banned. Here is a response to common arguments and questions on the issue.
«The presi-what?»
Assuming that your student union is based on a horizontal organization, you have probably already seen presidiums in your life. A presidium is a group of people elected at a general assembly (GA) who perform facilitative/bureaucratic tasks for the GA (taking notes, explaining procedures, managing speaking turns, etc.). Often, to ensure impartiality, people who are not members of the student union in question will be selected, which brings us to the first argument in favor of remuneration.
“These are external people we bring in just for this purpose, and they deserve to be paid.”
This view is problematic because it implies that any work that does not directly benefit the person doing it deserves remuneration. The problem is this: how can we justify working only for our own gain when students are working on a struggle that does not directly concern them? Should Palestinians be the only ones concerned about the ongoing genocide in Gaza? Should we ignore what is happening in Sudan if we do not live there? Is it legitimate to turn a blind eye to what is happening in the United States with the mass deportations carried out by ICE if we do not live in the country, or if we are not targeted by this state terrorism? No one would dare to argue this, so why suggest that the presidium should not feel compelled to help a student union function and fight under the pretext that it is not part of it? It is inconsistent to fight for causes that do not concern us while arguing that the presidium deserves to be paid simply because it comes from outside. This position is simply not coherent.
“Whether we like it or not, we need money to live…”
It is often argued that praesidia, whatever their intentions, need money to survive and therefore, if we want them to have the time to come and do this work for us, we have to pay them. Even if we accept that it is desirable for people to make organizing their career (we will come back to this), we may wonder whether it is really the responsibility of the student movement to provide for their needs. Of course, we can say that we must show empathy and compassion towards comrades who are in need or who may have difficulty finding permanent employment for reasons beyond their control, for example. However, while I have no problem with the idea of empathy, I do have a problem with the idea of outsiders coming to beg and meddle in the student movement when their youth is long gone. In an ideal world, we would not have an external presidium, and those who come to work for students should feel honored to be able to do so for free and to continue participating in the wonderful environment that is the student movement.
Admittedly, as mentioned earlier, the student movement is not necessarily limited to students. That said, if a student union wants to help people in need who are no longer part of the student community, there are much better ways to do so. Furthermore, if we wanted to do so through the highly inefficient route of a paid praesidium, this intention would have to be transparent when presented to members and, like any campaign choice, it would have to be questioned frequently. Finally, praesidiums should be chosen with the explicit intention of taking on people in need, not simply friends of executive members or their staff.
I would add to all this that, even in a world where this argument became coherent, another question would still need to be asked: what would be the consequences for students? Should we take the risk of giving the impression that it takes unattainable skills, or even training, to join this new class of activists?
Final diagnosis
The remuneration of the presidium is self-justifying and justified only by itself. It is a practice that steals money from collectives and sends it to outside friends of executives and staff, and is so deeply rooted in organizations that no one dares to question it or attempt to change it. In short, praesidium remuneration is a cancer on student unions and must be eradicated from the student movement as soon as possible.