Hacking away at the truth
It's symbolic that the Union hacks felt their internal politics was more important than debating the plight of Azim Ansari, a fellow Oxford student currently resisting being deported. It's indicative of an institution that cares nothing for debate, nothing for the clash of ideas and political forces, and everything for networking and selfish gain.
A group of hacks filibustered the emergency debate at the Union last Thursday, in order to prevent a candidate from completing the requisite number of speeches necessary for eligibility to stand for a position in the Union. Granted, it was never going to be a good debate. The main reason the motion was being discussed was to put pressure on the Immigration Minister, Des Browne MP, speaking later that evening.
Azim's supporters didn't expect any serious opposition – the point wasn't really to test an argument, but that's fine; that's politics. However, the hacks obviously felt that their own little rivalries were more important than future of Azim. Whatever view you take on Azim's situation or the use of the emergency debate to political ends (the hacks' or Azim's), what took place in that chamber is indicative of a deeper malaise: that the Union doesn't take debating seriously.
By not taking debating seriously, the hacks don't take politics seriously. Perhaps the emergency debate could have been the drop that overflowed the cup, with Des Browne taking on board the strong views of students in Oxford. This reflects the distain the hacks show towards the causes regular members of the Union are interested in; a distain for real problems. Politics must be taken seriously.
It might seem to us that the political world is in deep flux, and that political parties are unable to respond to the bewildering changes in society and the world. However, the appropriate response is not to resort to selfish self-promotion. To take politics seriously we need forms of debate that allow us to develop our own views – to test arguments and to struggle with each other to the end of finding the truth. Parliamentary debating at the Union is limited to this end.
Moreover, its dominance in Oxford promotes a cynicism and arrogance that pervades those involved. It promotes scepticism about what we can achieve in the shared forum of debate. Protagonists in parliamentary debate can only attack the arguments of their opponents, and savagely too.
However without enough time to see those arguments defended, the audience lose the opportunity to see why criticism is irrelevant, why it assumes something controversial, or why a seemingly weak argument is in fact strong. Furthermore, it means only the most arrogant and self-important individuals in Oxford get their say. Frankly, I think it's just cheek to interrupt someone in the middle of their speech – and, moreover, it prevents the speaker getting across their key arguments.
To have an argument with someone, at the very least you need to understand their position. How can we do that without hearing them out before proceeding to crush their arguments? It means that trivial problems, like which section of a statute some law falls under, get prioritised over the core problems of whether the asylum system undermines the dignity of those it deals with. Rather, if politics is something worth grappling with, we should do something different.
We ought to build forums that allow us to hear out those with whom we disagree; that allow us to criticise others without having to interrupt someone who might deserve our respect; and more, to encourage critical – yet impassioned – engagement by returning to individuals just criticised for a response, perhaps more than once. Whist the Union isn't conducive to genuine political engagement and argument it does do things for which I and others should be grateful.
It brings the great and the good to Oxford to have their argument out. The Oxford Union is rare, in that politicians feel speaking there might change a political climate – that to be seen to win a debate there is useful to them. As students in Oxford we benefit from being able to take part in these debates, and thus to affect the thinking of those who hold power and make our voices heard. However, the way the Union works is not conducive truly to testing an argument.
Nor does it do what should be the main job of a political society in Oxford – that is, to help each individual taking part to work out where they stand. Debate is an important means to understanding the world – only by testing an argument in a public forum can we really understand what we believe. The Union is where politics is played out, and whilst that's attractive, we're here in Oxford to work out what we think and believe.
If we don't know where we stand then we can't be convincing, and – when it comes to it – actually change society. If we fail to know what we really think then we'll be ruled by the unthinking – like those who undermined the emergency debate for Azim.
24th Feb 2005