Bad idea to ban slates
Aaron Takhar
I won’t defend or attack anything that occurred in the year that was 2006. As a student I just wanted to see some new things for this year’s election, something that the ‘new’ people promised after ousting the ‘old’ guard. Doesn’t this seem reasonable?
Well, it seems as if the only change that has come about is the banning of slates in the election. What a blow to democracy and everything our political systems stand for! I thought the election was going to be open to any new individual or group that wanted to take part in student politics. Instead, incumbent directors, or those who have been involved for a longer time than most, have just been given — by themselves via a vote on the resolution — an even greater advantage over those new students who (almost) cared enough to consider running in the election. The current SFSS had given this move great thought, enough to almost consider consulting students about it. So what is the ‘spirit’ behind this resolution? I spoke to a number of SFSS directors to find out for myself. The reasoning behind this unanimous Board of Directors decision, not in order of importance, goes something like this:
1) “Because UBC did it” and they’ve experienced a much “smoother” election process overall. This sounds like the weakest argument of them all.
2) Slates promote party politics; not every member gets to vote individually once elected.
3) Only select members of a slate are actually “qualified” candidates, whereas the rest of the slate is just there to fill in seats.
4) For departmental representatives, at least, it forces them to consult their constituents with greater profundity rather than approaching them as a member of a slate.
Okay, there you have it. The whole idea of socialising, networking, building groups and alliances, working together with your fellow students is of little or no importance. Some of the most fundamental principles every student in the Faculty of Arts, Business, and to a lesser degree other areas of study will learn and become accustomed to, do not matter for this election. Rugged individualism is the key to success in an SFSS election.
The saddest part of banning slates is that the same ‘old’ people have arrived as if the SFSS were a revolving door of different individuals but the same thinking and policy. Is anyone naïve enough to think that those SFSS hardliners aren’t going to build some sort of alliances within working groups, committees, commissions, and those select few who even care enough to vote in the election? No. It is simply because doing so is part of the political process, and the SFSS knows this too. You can’t ban politics — you can only restrict it from the less fortunate; in this case it is new students that sought to run but eventually decided against it. Could you imagine Prime Minister Harper saying, “I think we should ban parties because it’s too much headache and elections would run much smoother if we did away with parties?” In essence, they have banned slates for newcomers who pose a political threat and in turn created a political arena that solely benefits them. And what about administering such an election, has anyone asked the Independent Electoral Commission what it will be like to try to enforce a ban on . . . politics? There are some absurd rules in place that the IEC must abide by in order to enforce the ban on political (slate) behaviour, and for what justifiable reason? It looks like a utopian system that (secondly) tries to incorporate democratic principles into it, meanwhile solidifying barriers to new potential candidates.
Well, no hard feelings, at least all the geeks on campus still have a place to hang out. And as for me personally, I’ve actually gained enough interest to take time in order to write this piece, so it’s not all bad, I guess. Hopefully more students will get involved once the ban on politics is lifted. As expected, because of the outlawing of slates fewer students will run for office and the voter turnout will continue to be low. Is this what the SFSS wants? I think this article definitely reflects the view of the majority of ‘borderline’ students who almost became interested in running this time around. Hopefully the ‘newly’ elected Board comes up with some better incentives for new students to run for office next year.
By the way, it would be nice to get a response from a non-SFSS hardliner or perennial Peak contributor because we already know what you’re going to say.