Constitutions, whether they concern sovereign states, organisations, companies or even unincorporated associations, are important documents. They constitute the fundamental principles and established precedents of whatever bodies they concern. Sometimes, they contain some not-so-fundamental principles, but the line between the fundamental and the not-so-fundamental is rarely clear cut. The very essence of what is fundamental is open to interpretation, but attempts to clarify the not-so-fundamental parts in a constitution would defeat the purpose in many ways. Either it needs to be there, or it doesn’t. And a constitution with only the most fundamental principles and rules wouldn’t be a very expansive document at all. You either try to codify precedent and set down rules, or you scramble around trying to keep things as they are by following unwritten customs. Plato, who argued for Philosopher Kings, felt that the moral character and mindset of the rulers were more important than the set of rules and framework we place around those doing the ruling, but the reality is that we can never be sure about the character of those who do the ruling, so the rules and the framework are necessary. And that’s particularly true when it comes to student unions, mainly because officers of the union can often be elected on a whim to positions they may have very little experience for, and in many cases are in control of huge budgets.
Given all of this, it’s a settled matter that Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union (TCDSU) needs a constitution. It doesn’t seem to be a settled matter, however, that certain parts of it are worth upholding. Timmy Guiney, a final-year student, is a member of TCDSU’s Oversight Commission, and wants to run in the upcoming elections. Yet, he is prevented from doing so specifically by the rules of the post he took up – a clear constitutional prohibition that prevents members of the commission from running. And it is this prohibition which he wants to be disregarded. This is where the line between the fundamental and the not-so-fundamental comes in. If we agree that the line between them is so rarely clear cut, we have to value every part of the constitution, and treat every part as if it’s fundamental. If the Electoral Commission, or indeed, the union’s council, was to decide that a small part of it didn’t matter just to allow someone to run in the upcoming elections – as Guiney is demanding – we call into question every other little detail of the constitution. If we were to decide things like this on a case-by-case basis, it would defeat the purpose of having a constitution in the first place. That’s how you open up things to bad intentions. Things are either important, or they’re not. And, say, if there is widespread consensus that a part of it should be removed, then it’s up to the students as a whole to vote on that. What should not be done is some sort of haphazard decision where we write part of the constitution as it currently stands off – because that creates a very bad precedent.
Also in Editorial this week: Heavily Contested Races Bode Well for the Union
Written by the Editorial Board of The University Times
