Late on Wednesday (October 28), the registrar’s order was read out beneath Ghalib’s statue at Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI). Students emerged from the hostels cheering. After an 18-day agitation, including a hunger strike by five students, the university agreed to a timeline for restoring its students’ union, which has remained defunct since 2006. The administration has set May 15, 2027, as the deadline for approving and implementing the union constitution, with elections to follow within six weeks of the next academic session. Karnataka, too, has issued an order reviving campus elections after a gap of 37 years. Why have universities and governments been so reluctant to allow students to elect their representatives? And what did students lose in between?Frankly, quite a lot. Political awareness weakened, along with students’ engagement with society, public affairs and the history of the institutions they occupy. Higher education increasingly came to be seen as a route to employment and financial security. There is nothing wrong with that expectation. The problem arises when employability becomes the overriding purpose of a university, leaving little room for developing informed, questioning citizens. Management and business programmes expanded, while the humanities and social sciences struggled for recognition and resources. The larger purpose of education received less attention.In Deschooling Society, Ivan Illich warned that institutions often confuse process with substance: schooling gets mistaken for education, and a credential for learning. A university that measures its success largely through placements risks teaching students to value only what the institution can certify. Education, however, must also help young people understand power, question authority and recognise their responsibilities towards society. Fortunately, there are signs of a renewed awareness and a demand for change. Protests led by young people in several countries have raised questions about employment, dignity and accountability. Jamia’s students did not ask for a placement drive. They asked for a voice and stayed on campus for weeks to secure it. For two or three decades, we have often treated young people as people to be prepared for the world of work rather than encouraged to question the world they inhabit. They are now demanding a larger role, and universities should help them assume it.A larger democratic deficit when students have no elected representativesWhy do student bodies matter? Because that is where democratic awareness is practised. Students who encounter different philosophies, argue over ideologies and negotiate with administrators learn what no lecture alone can deliver. They learn to represent others, defend a position, accept criticism and reach compromises. They also discover that leadership involves accountability to those who elect them. These experiences are important because democracy is not sustained by voting alone. It requires citizens who understand participation and are willing to hold those in authority answerable.Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU)’s students’ union, for example, has provided an organised platform for raising questions about hostel fees, access to facilities and student welfare. The controversy over hostel fee increases in 2019 demonstrated why representation matters: student representatives complained that they had not been adequately heard before decisions affecting them were taken.Also read: After Student Union, Faculty at Jamia Millia Islamia Await Restoration of Teachers’ AssociationSuch issues are not peripheral to university life. Fees, accommodation, scholarships, facilities and academic regulations directly affect students’ ability to pursue their education. An elected union gives them a recognised channel through which to raise grievances and negotiate with the administration. Illich’s argument that much of what matters is learnt outside formal instruction, through participation, is relevant here. A union is one institutional form of that participation.There is also a larger democratic deficit when students have no elected representatives. University administrations make decisions that affect thousands of young people, yet those affected may have little say in the process. Consultation, when it occurs, is often informal and dependent on the willingness of individual administrators. An elected body changes this relationship. It provides continuity, gives students a collective voice and requires the administration to engage with representatives who have a legitimate mandate. This does not mean that students must have a veto over academic or administrative decisions. It means that decisions affecting them should be explained, discussed and, where necessary, reconsidered. Universities cannot teach accountability while remaining indifferent to it within their own institutions.Administrators usually object that unions bring violence, politicisation and disruption. That worry is not baseless. Delhi University’s 2015 election season saw clashes between rival student groups, forcing the cancellation of a proposed presidential debate amid security concerns. Student organisations can also become extensions of national political parties, with money, outside influence and ideological loyalties taking precedence over campus concerns. But these problems are arguments for better regulation, not for eliminating elections.Student unions must examine their own democratic credentialsThe Lyngdoh Committee, constituted on the Supreme Court’s direction in 2005 and whose recommendations were accepted in 2006, provides safeguards. These include age and eligibility limits, restrictions on election expenditure, measures against criminalisation and a mechanism for addressing electoral grievances. Its recommendations also seek to limit the duration and disruption caused by election campaigns. Proper enforcement can help prevent campus politics from becoming a proxy battle for national parties.At the same time, student unions must examine their own democratic credentials. Elections alone do not guarantee fair representation. Money, caste, class and gender inequalities can influence who contests, who gets heard and whose concerns receive attention. Women and students from disadvantaged backgrounds must have a meaningful presence in elected bodies, rather than merely symbolic representation. Karnataka’s recent decision to reserve positions for women in student unions is a step in this direction, although questions of wider social representation also deserve attention. Unions must be accountable to the students they represent, publish their decisions and expenditure, and ensure that their activities do not interfere with academic work. Democratic institutions need safeguards, but they also need democratic conduct.There is also a fundamental question. If students might turn violent, is teaching restraint not part of the university’s job? Aren’t educators meant to teach critical thinking, respect for other views and the habit of weighing multiple perspectives, not just mathematics and management? Banning elections does not remove conflict; it removes the opportunity to learn how to handle it. Students who never practise disagreement are likely to find it harder, not easier, to disagree peacefully. A university should be a place where competing ideas can be expressed, challenged and defended without intimidation. If it cannot create such an environment within its own campus, what are its claims about preparing students for democratic citizenship worth?However, the uncomfortable truth is that many universities and governments prefer obedience. A quiet campus is easier to administer, and compliant citizens are easier to govern. Illich called this schooling’s hidden curriculum: whatever the formal syllabus says, students also learn to treat institutional authority as the measure of what is worth knowing. When questioning is discouraged and representation is denied, students absorb a lesson about power that no textbook can correct. That is the tragedy of a democracy that trains its young not to practise democracy.The need for campus democracy is even greater today. Much of what young people encounter comes through social media feeds and short videos shaped by algorithms. These platforms can expose them to diverse views, but they can also reinforce existing prejudices and circulate misinformation faster than it can be corrected. Universities must therefore become spaces where claims are examined, evidence is demanded and opposing arguments are heard. An elected student body, supported by open debates and discussion forums, can help cultivate these habits. It gives students an opportunity to move beyond instant reactions and consider the consequences of their positions. This is particularly important in a society where political disagreement is increasingly accompanied by hostility and intolerance.Jamia’s achievement must now be measured by implementation, not by the celebrations that followed the announcement. The university should honour its commitment and complete the process without undue delay or dilution. Karnataka, too, must ensure that its decision translates into functioning student bodies across the institutions covered by the order. Other states that continue to deny students this opportunity should reconsider their position rather than wait for another prolonged agitation. Elections will be messy, and safeguards, faculty mentoring and transparent monitoring can help contain the problems. But the possibility of disorder cannot become a permanent justification for denying representation.The lesson is straightforward. Students who are denied the opportunity to practise democratic argument and responsibility on campus carry that deficit into public life. Universities should produce graduates who can earn a living, but they must also help produce citizens who can question power, defend their rights and respect the rights of others. A growing nation cannot afford to neglect either responsibility.P. John J Kennedy is an educator, columnist and political analyst.