Never doubt that the world can be changed
If you ask me—and people rarely do—the format for political debates is utterly broken. Candidates are given either too much or too little time to voice their platforms; moderators rarely do a good job of keeping the discussion on track; and when it comes to actually facilitating any manner of discussion, it often feels like debates become a political battle royale. Suffice it to say, the debate format needs to be revamped before politics descends even further into the bloodsport that it already too closely resembles.
When it came time for The Ontarion to cover this year’s CSA general elections, we knew that we needed to find a way to get to the core of each candidate’s platform and beliefs. More than just asking about what candidates hoped to accomplish—because, let’s face it, they all want to accomplish a lot—we wanted to inform students about the CSA, its goals, and the goals of those who hope to represent it. As News Editor—and The Ontarion’s chief CSA correspondent—I took it upon myself to craft questions that got to the heart of the issues found within our Central Student Association.
In retrospect, the solution almost seems too easy. Instead of asking specific questions about accountability, solidarity, and social justice—instead of allowing candidates to field questions about student fees and university administration—I’d have a conversation with each executive commissioner candidate. Of course, the conversations would be directed by key questions, but the content of the discussion would be determined by the candidate, instead of by a set of cue-cards.
Candidates were all asked a basic core set of questions, but the conversation shifted depending on the words each individual chose to use. For the sake of editing—and for the sake of the readership—each published interview follows a relatively similar flightpath. Candidates are first asked about their desire for office, what they feel the CSA represents, and what they hope to accomplish. What follows is a series of diversions based on their answers, all of which eventually culminates with a simple question: How they plan on ensuring that the CSA works with The Ontarion.
I’ll be the first to admit that the interview process was not as smooth as I’d have hoped. Oddly enough, it turns out that getting politicians to open up about their beliefs is a lot harder than asking them how they feel about certain issues. However, after we’d dispensed with the niceties—after I’d asked them their names and the positions they were running for—the content of each conversation centred on students and the issues they face on a day-to-day basis.
I believe it’s important to share a glaringly obvious fact about this year’s candidates. None of the commissioner candidates have firm plans that they hope to enact on their first day in office. In fact, none of the candidates have any firm plans at all; all they seem to have is a glimmer in their eye and a desire to make their school a better place. This should come as no surprise; anyone who’s held any form of elected office will attest to the fact that listening to the needs of the constituency is the first step in solving any problem.
What each candidate does have is a relative framework for how they plan on acquiring the information they need to enact positive social change across the University of Guelph campus. Whether it be through online polls, directly asking students for input, incentivizing the survey process, or speaking to them at CSA events, each candidate wants to learn more about the students at the university.
Each candidate also holds the belief that connecting students with their CSA is an integral function of the Central Student Association. It’s no secret that many students don’t know about their CSA. It’s no secret that the CSA is an organization widely regarded as a monolithic entity. It’s also certainly no secret that the CSA holds an immense amount of power. As an organization, they are more than the individuals who help bring exciting events to the University of Guelph undergraduate student body—they’re a group that can be the difference between an incredible four years, or a mediocre undergraduate experience.
At this point, I’d like to mention the elephant in the electoral room: There are no candidates for the local affairs commissioner position. Furthermore, none of the commissioner candidates are opposed for their desired seats. There are only four individuals running for four executive commissioner positions, and, barring some form of grand upset, these four students will be elected to hold office.
As a member of the press—and as a politically minded student—it’s my responsibility to remind students that they have a choice when voting for their executive commissioners. Students can vote against the election of a commissioner and students can choose to exercise a vote of abstention. If none of the individuals running for office seem like viable candidates for the CSA executive, students can choose to submit an official ballot that explicitly denies that candidate a positive vote. In the instance that a candidate receives more rejection votes than acceptance votes, they will not be elected to the CSA executive.
With two days left in the election, I encourage students to vote. It might not seem like there’s a choice, but in a healthy democracy—especially the kind that the CSA encourages—one vote is the difference between candidacy and election.
I leave with words from Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”