Unfortunately, modifications to the current law have often been setbacks to democracy. For instance, the law was modified to replace election with appointment to the position of dean, at a time when we were demanding that university presidents take office by election. I am aware that some oppose this view, on the grounds that top-level academic posts are part of the executive branch, but I would argue that executive responsibilities are among the tasks of the administrative and technical apparatus. The terms of reference of top academic posts should be restricted to their essential functions, which are to draw up, monitor and implement academic policy. Democratic practice is reflected in selection for leadership positions, therefore, but also in the involvement of students, who are the true beneficiaries of the process of education yet are invariably excluded from decision-making.
Undemocratic practices abound elsewhere, at various academic levels.
The principle of the independence of universities, which was one of the cornerstones of their establishment in the early years of the 20th century, has been eroded over the years. Finances and administration, the lifelines of a university, are the very factors compromising its independence. Any action requires funds, and any responsibility demands an administrative procedure. But both financial and administrative functions are governed by laws with no relevance to universities. In this respect, a university is treated like any institution involved in any activity.