By David Bailey-Mckay
I write this article during Arc Board and university council elections. At the same time, the Bunyip Aristocracy has handed down a budget worthy of Ancien Régime. This article, however, will not be lambasting the federal Coalition – read SRC OB reports for that. Instead, I’ll focus on why people who have power feel entitled to have it and use it.
Some people are born leaders. With others who become leaders, there comes a point in a person’s life when they feel they have to rise to the occasion. At this point, they feel entitled to leadership and the power associated. Entitlement for them may come through divine intention, a triumphriate of the masses or being drunk and bored at the Roundhouse. They feel that nothing should get in their way to power. When those who have been ordained are successful in gaining power, it justifies their initial idea of being destined to power.
This is not to say that those who seek to elevate themselves to positions above others are a bad thing. However, it is when looking at their intentions and why they do it. For those who feel entitled to a position for a line in their resume, or that by being born into privilege is justification enough, in my books, these are the people who later become the Bunyip Aristocracy.
For the ennobled Bunyip Aristocracy, power is not a thing to be used for change, but is rather something to be used to build ones ego. This causes a raft of problems, as it means their power will not be used to change the social conditions of others, but instead to justify the passage of power to those who feel entitled due to the same circumstances. They fear criticism from others as a result, as it has become harder to claim inherent power since 1789. In my time, this was seen with one Arc Board chair who had their own tribute in Tharunka entirely retracted in order to not bring criticism on himself or the organisation.
As a final word I would like to express my desire for us to return to pen and paper democracy at UNSW. USYD does it, and they by far have the most active and critical view on their governing bodies. What could possibly be wrong with that?