Higher education legislation, along with the statutes and regulations of institutions, give students a say in governance and advisory bodies such as the council, senate, faculty boards and institutional forums. But there is a shocking dislocation between the rationale and historical contexts for such participation and the earnestness with which students view this co-responsibility. The ease with which students shine in their absence, the total lack of understanding of the core issues facing institutions and the actual or potential impact thereof on student interests results in this sharing of responsibility becoming ineffective.
Change of the institutional culture regarding student governance demands much more than a new constitution or the reformulation of policy. Students must be exposed to multidimensional leadership development programmes of which the outcome must be directed towards an understanding of the strategic positioning of the institution against the background of the current South African and institutional contexts and imperatives. Successfully orienting student leaders is essential to free student councils of attitudes and behaviours that are out of step with the contexts that led to the establishment of a new political, constitutional and educational dispensation for South Africa.
It will be extremely difficult for student leaders who take ownership of the place and role of an institution within a successful South Africa to build student governance on ideological orientations that divide campuses, are not conducive to transformation and that provide a legitimacy base for protest and violence that serves no other purpose but to damage property, and deny fellow students educational opportunities.
Legitimate student leadership within the tertiary education context can only be built on the basis of academic performance that earns the respect of fellow students, supported by proven leadership potential.
A substantial threat to student governance exists in that there is a danger, as was the case before 1993, that some student representative councils will find the reason for their existence in resistance and protest.
A particular manifestation is one characterised by attempts to arrange student governance in such a manner that, when seen in the broader context, the emphasis is mainly on serving and protecting minority interests. However, an untenable dilemma for higher education emerges when this approach is promoted from platforms that continue to embrace outdated and reprehensible ideologies about the protection and assertion of said rights.
The student community cannot be blamed for lacking the appetite to participate or for an unsettling scepticism about the ability to develop an agenda and plan of action that address student interests within student life and influence how such interests are dealt with by the institution.
It is simply a reality that this contamination of student governance is one of the most important factors leading to the disempowerment of student councils and their poor image among students and staff, causing them to be relegated to an unimportant component within institutional governance structures.
The accountability of the student governance body comprises the accountability of the participants. In the case of dominant ideological or political (party) orientated student governance, the reality is that the understanding of accountability and protocol can become vague.
There is an evident lack of tolerance for those who function actively within political circles who question the ideology, strategy or priorities and who work counter to the promotion of these. It is unthinkable that a different set of rules exists for student representatives who are deployed in student governance under the auspices of and with the active support of politically orientated organisations.
It is also clear that the (strict) basis of accountability of these representatives is not primarily directed by accountability towards the broader student community.
The untenable situation that results, not only for the representatives but also for the representative student council as an institution, and ultimately for the tertiary institution, is obvious where the ideological and political objectives that must be achieved do not coincide or are simply at odds with the national and institutional imperatives that are essential for higher education within the current constitutional dispensation in South Africa. It is unrealistic to think that student interests and those of the institution they are at will be given preference and will demonstrate commitment and loyalty to the institution.
This is an edited speech made by Professor Chris de Beer, vice- principal of the University of Pretoria at the recent National Association of Student Development Practitioners’ 21st Anniversary Conference at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology