László Molnárfi’s rise to the presidency of TCDSU was a compelling underdog story. An energetic outsider rose from constant derision from members of Council to a landslide election victory in the space of a couple of years. He entered office not an uncontroversial figure, but with a clear mandate to deliver on a more radical and confrontational vision of the union.
No one can deny the successes it has seen. Within a month of term beginning, the union had secured a rent freeze from College, soon after a bold and effective protest that made national headlines; it has been unapologetic in advocating and fighting for the material needs of students; and throughout the year it has received resounding support for its outspoken and consistent campaign against College’s silence on Gaza.
What has developed throughout however has been an increasing tendency from Molnárfi to transcend his legitimate mandate, and to become more and more emboldened to disregard checks and balances. An unconstitutional campaign urging students to vote against the government, though no doubt popular with many, sends a clear message to over 20% of the student body that their political views are not welcome in the union they are members of. A push to change the constitution to allow such moves has been undeterred despite being twice voted down at council, and once withdrawn due to concerns regarding religious discrimination.
Molnárfi’s decision to endorse a Yes/No vote in the March 8 referendums on behalf of the union without even so much as a vote of approval from Council – after being explicitly told such a vote was necessary at minimum – boggles the mind when one considers the highly contentious nature of the debate, and the needlessness of TCDSU taking a stance at all. Regardless of one’s own views on these decisions, it isn’t difficult to understand why they might spark controversy. Despite previously railing against the union for being too narrow in its political dialogues, Molnárfi has shown himself to be unreceptive to any view that contradicts his own.
All of this culminated in a dramatic moment on Tuesday night when rather than stand and let his actions be judged by student representatives, Molnárfi led his self-proclaimed “faction” out of Council in order to collapse quorum to prevent a motion of censure being voted on. Rather than vindicate his position, Molnárfi’s actions undermine his professed confidence in his own support, preferring to prevent a vote being held than to risk losing a legitimate test of it. Molnárfi’s defiance of the rules up to this point has been legitimised by an imagined mandate from a student body hungry for social justice. But his refusal to allow a real measure of that mandate to take place has shown that he doesn’t care whether it exists at all.
The weaponisation of quorum to prevent a vote taking place is the most blatant abuse of processes the union has seen in some time and sets an example that can be copied by any niche faction within Council in the future. Molnárfi has become far more dictatorial in his impulses than any union leadership whom he condemned in the past, and his sinister method of controlling the union through a minority faction sets an outrageous precedent for years to come.
The weaponisation of quorum to prevent a vote taking place is the most blatant abuse of processes the union has seen in some time and sets an example that can be copied by any niche faction within Council in the future
In recommending a motion of censure, the Oversight Commission (OC) is not setting out to stifle the voice of the downtrodden; it is safeguarding the future of the union by preventing a dangerous precedent of impunity for union leaders. It would have been an instance of gross negligence and a complete dereliction of its duty not to do so. By disregarding the OC, Molnárfi is not “sticking it to the man”, he is “sticking it” to overburdened fellow students, volunteering their time to keep the union working.
Molnárfi’s critics are wrong to suggest that rules must be followed simply because they are the rules. There are moments in politics that warrant defiance. A long history of civil disobedience demonstrates its ability to challenge deep injustice, and that often only by breaking the rules can the depth of their injustice be properly revealed. Never has this applied to the checks and balances that keep our leaders accountable. Civil disobedience exists to be a tool of liberation for those without access to the levers of power; it does not exist to exculpate leaders from their responsibility to their members.
The president’s utter disregard for the processes in place to keep him accountable to those who elected him falls short of his commitment to grassroots activism and instead serves to maintain a personalist form of power wholly inappropriate for a union of any kind. The point of the union is coordinated action, not centralised power. The rules which Molnárfi broke are not designed to limit his ability to resist the dreaded neoliberal establishment, but to keep him and those who come after him accountable to union members, and to ensure that it continues to be a space to which all students feel free to contribute. If our student leaders are serious about the “engagement” they espouse year after year they might begin by demonstrating their ability to tolerate a plurality of voices.
After violent riots shook Dublin in November, Trinity News decided against publishing the results of a sabbatical officer approval poll, in the knowledge that the union’s admirable response to the crisis would no doubt have changed students’ attitudes.
In that poll, Molnárfi received just 56% approval. This compared to between 68%-81% for all of his fellow sabbatical officers. Despite a wide margin of victory over weak competition in last year’s sabbatical elections – in which turnout was just 9% – he does not have the quiet support of the masses he claims to have.
In that poll, Molnárfi received just 56% approval. This compared to between 68%-81% for all of his fellow sabbatical officers
When Molnárfi uses his role as president to show nothing but contempt for the members of his own union, it is impossible to defend his actions, however honourable the principles that underpin them. Contrary to what his vision of grassroots involvement promised, he has shown a sorely disappointing unwillingness to bring people along with him, and instead an apparent determination to actually fracture the union between his supporters and his enemies. A schism like this would be a disastrous obstacle to the powerful momentum the student movement has built during the past number of years, and Molnárfi should know this. By courting it, he threatens to undermine the legacy of his impressive term in office, and the progress of one of the most politically effective students’ unions in the country.
