SRC mandate and its collective responsibilities – addressed by Ben Anderson
By Emma Giles and Zirquinn Phillips
The mandate and collective responsibilities of the Student Representative Council (SRC) was discussed in the third agenda point at the student plenary sitting on 4 March.
Ben Anderson, a generally elected SRC member that had previously been disqualified and then reinstated on 13 January, had received the agenda point in an email from Solomzi Mphambo, the Speaker of the Student Assembly, on 3 March. The email said that the point had been submitted by students and that Anderson was required to provide feedback at the sitting on 4 March.
At the sitting, Mphambo read out the prompt that had accompanied the agenda point in the email to Anderson. The prompt read: “Discussion on the constitutional mandate of SRC members, specifically regarding the principle of collective responsibility and the extent to which SRC members represent the entire student body once elected, rather than a specific voter base or affiliation”.
Additionally, the prompt requested for “clarification on how the SRC upholds the principle of collective responsibility, particularly in instances where members publicly distance themselves from collective decisions or appear to limit their representation to a specific constituency rather than the broader student body”.
Ben Anderson, a SRC member, addresses the third official agenda point of the student plenary sitting on 4 March titled “SRC mandate and collective responsibility”. Photo: Emma Giles
On 31 March, Anderson said to Die Matie that “collective responsibility” is not mentioned in the Student Constitution or other relevant documents that govern the SRC.
“In my experience, people who ask me to ‘respect the principle of collective responsibility on the SRC’ are actually just trying to stop me from publicly voicing criticism or disagreement with the SRC, because that criticism makes them uncomfortable,” said Anderson to Die Matie on 31 March.
He said that while he does see “collective responsibility” as worthwhile for making decisions together, such as in his Arts and Culture Committee (KuKo) portfolio, he does not necessarily think this ought to be the case for the SRC. “If I vote against a decision of the SRC, I should very much to be allowed to publicly stand by that vote and justify it,” he said.
Anderson addressed the room and referred to certain members in attendance as “my friends in the middle” which led Liyema Langa, a member of the Economic Freedom Fighters Youth Command, to raise a point of order. “According to parliamentary rules, Speaker, you address us as a collective, not as a group here. That is against parliamentary rules, so he [Anderson] must reframe it. We are not your friends,” said Langa.
Liyema Langa, representing the Economic Freedom Fighters Youth Command (EFFYC), points towards the front where Ben Anderson, a SRC member, stands and to his left where the SRC is seated during the third official agenda point of the student plenary sitting on 4 March. Photo: Emma Giles. Photo: Emma Giles
Anderson said to Die Matie on 31 March, “I was disappointed that certain members of the audience chose to waste parliament’s time by patronising me about the words I used to address them when I was attempting to address them in good faith.” He said there is no mention of referring to people as “friends” in the Student Assembly Rules or Parliament’s Rules of Engagement which govern how people address each other in student parliament.
At the sitting, Anderson withdrew his statement of “my friends” and continued his response to the prompt for the agenda point.
“Sometimes on a big disagreement, I might feel the need to put something on my [Instagram] story to voice it. Look, I have a big disagreement with the SRC on this issue, and I would like you to know that, but I’m still on the team. I am not resigning. I am not distancing myself. I am just respectfully disagreeing while I am still in the SRC,” said Anderson.
He also said the SRC’s “priority is to present a great and competent leadership team for students, but another priority is also that we have different opinions, different experiences and different backgrounds to be represented”. He said, “That includes my own, right? Disagreement in politics is super important.”
He also noted that the SRC presenting a united front to students is crucial and that he wished he could wear a maroon SRC blazer with the rest of the SRC, but that he was unable due to his late addition to the team.
Anderson proceeded to clarify that he will have to leave the sitting early. “I have Bible study at 19:05,” he said. Anderson said to Die Matie on 6 April that he had excused himself a few days in advance through the Student Parliament’s Administration Officer, Noxolo Njiji. The excuse was granted by Njiji.
Those in attendance at the sitting expressed concerns with Anderson leaving early and some said that the plenary sitting should have been prioritised over his prior engagements.
Anderson said to Die Matie on 31 March, “To repeat what I said in front of the plenary sitting, I am a Christian before I am anything else, and my faith is something I always try to prioritise on occasions like this.”
Ben Anderson, a SRC member, addresses the third official agenda point of the student plenary sitting titled “SRC mandate and collective responsibility”. Photo: Emma Giles
He said the agenda point he was due to speak on was scheduled 50 minutes before he was supposed to leave for Bible study. “I was confident I would be able to make the necessary contribution to Student Parliament, while also balancing my commitment to my faith,” he said. “These concerns likely did not come from a place of genuine concern about my capabilities or capacity as a student leader, but were political and personal in nature.”
He said that other SRC members arrived late to the sitting and were not criticised and “the questions raised about him leaving early were not about his commitment or leadership ability, but specifically and derisively focused on his faith”.
Langa questioned what Anderson’s portfolio is within the SRC and called for clarification on two accounts where, according to Langa, Anderson had mentioned that he only represents the students that voted for him.
Anderson responded that, due to his late addition to the SRC, he had yet to receive a portfolio at the time of the sitting and proceeded to clarify that he does serve all students. Anderson then left the room and Mphambo continued with the agenda.
On 31 March, Anderson responded to Die Matie’s question, clarifying who he represents as an SRC member by quoting from his Substack newsletter that he published on 3 March.
“Operationally, we as SRC members must act as neutral ‘civil servants’, serving all students impartially. This includes in how we administer our various portfolios, how we run the SRC offices and how we participate in campus events.
“Politically, however, it is our responsibility to represent the people who gave us a mandate. This is how democracy works, people vote for you if they agree with you, and you represent the people who broadly agree with you. After all, to attempt to do otherwise would be futile.
“I do not and have never claimed to represent all students in the political discussions of the SRC. I represent those who agree with my plan for change, which is all I can honestly do while staying true to my values,” he said.
Anderson now holds the KuKo portfolio and serves as the chairperson of this portfolio. He will also sit on the SU Senate on behalf of the SRC.
Despite multiple attempts to contact Liyema Langa, Die Matie did not receive comment by the time of publication.
