The League of College Councils (LCC), an alliance of college councils which serves as a consultative body of the University Student Council (USC) similar to the CoR, held its election for two positions, the secretary and public information officer (PIO), yesterday afternoon. The School of Information and Library Science Student Council (SLIS SC) was elected as the secretary and College of Mass Communication Student Council (CMC SC) as the public information officer.
The election was actually a weird experience. The CMC SC (at least six of us: Ayeen, Gem, Marian, Airah, Carlos and I) was actually confident in winning the position since we were the only ones nominated. At the same time, CMC SC had always been the PIO since the training fits the position very well. And if I may say so, this was actually planned by members of the political party which adds even more to the confidence level. (hala, nag-bakla si ateh)
Apparently, there was another nominee, the National College of Public Administration and Governance Student Council (NCPAG SC).
So what's wrong?
My instincts tell me there is some sort of conspiracy going on. Being a Stand UP dominated council, (not Stand UP council, know the difference) it may be possible that the "other" party would rather grab it, being the position vital in making statements and press releases. (yeah, I know. It's just politics and all)
We were asked to present our general program of action. Being that confident, we actually didn't prepare a detailed list of plans. However, with another nominee, we really had to flaunt our abilities, which includes our connections with a long list of media organizations. The only thing NCPAG SC had to say to redeem themselves is "if you want someone new."
I got agitated with the statement.
I can't blame people for looking for alternatives to those considered as institutions in politics. I myself voted for Ramon Ilagan as mayor with the same reason in mind. However, by experience in college politics, it somehow connotes the idea of leaning towards apathy. Students usually look for alternatives because they think Stand UP is too proactive. So they would vote candidates from other parties, ending up only to regret their votes. Then they would vote for Stand UP for the next few years until they start to look for alternatives again. It has been a cycle.
It is because of this same cycle that I am now faced the battle of principles. And I definitely am not enjoying it.
I can easily let go of my angst on the council and "his" principles. I just hope students would no longer base their votes on just looking for alternatives but for the abilities and attitudes each person possess.
As it turns out, 12 out of 14 councils voted for CMC SC. (well, that's not bad at all) What makes this election interesting are the reasons given by other councils for voting us, that it's not about being an institution in this position, but the abilities and training of CMC students that makes us qualified for the position.
Now that we got the position of PIO, everything else will be internal.
well, therein lies the beauty of elections - the freedom to choose the people that will represent you.
ReplyDeletebut it is the same poison as it is the antidote. if left without any clear choice between the "veterans" and the "rookies", they (in your case the people who see STAND-UP as "too proactive"), see the alternative, their qualifications or the lack of it notwithstanding, as the, well, alternative choice.
an "exercise of apathy" or not, they could care less because they believe choosing the "alternative" is the denunciation of the older. i guess it naturally follows the human nature of trying out the new things if they feel that the old ones don't appeal to them anymore.
but of course, i don't agree with this line of thinking. because for one, as you put it, it's clearly politics; blast the other side without rhyme or reason. also, i think it defeats the purpose of election, which for me is to put in place the best choice there is. in situations like that, personally, it's better to abstain if you can't choose between "two evils".
taena, seryoso tong post ko. english pa, dugo tenga ko waaaah. ayaw ko na XD
grabe, dinugo ako...
ReplyDeletebut then, choosing to abstain is actually an indirect way of upholding the status quo.
then again, upholding the status quo is actually an advantage to stand up. but the phrase itself is quite an insult to its principles.
if i may reiterate lang, i still believe in voting not by the political party or affiliations, or by mere friendships but by qualifications and attitudes.
sana matuto na ang taong lumayo sa idea ng alternatives for the sake of alternatives.
dugo! waaah...
you abstain because it goes against your principles to vote for those whom you feel lack even an ounce of qualification. if you feel that your choices would in any way, directly or not, uphold the status quo, then i think abstaining is one way of rejecting the anticipated failure.
ReplyDeletebut then again, english na naman to. so dugo na utak natin parehas hahaha
post ka naman ng mga "light" articles hahha
sige, sabihin mo yan ke sir. hahaha
ReplyDeletedont wori kapatid, may susunod. ginagawa ko na. sana matapos ko kahit kinukulit mo ko ngayon sa y!messenger di ba...