SAC elections are a time for making promises, few of which few will be realized. What is politically possible on this campus often bears no relation to the well meaning claims made by our aspiring student politicians. And it often seems that the only criteria candidates have in mind when dreaming up their platforms is that they appear eye-catching or revolutionary against a day-glo background.
What sort of electorate would allow itself to be taken in by these cheap gimmicks? What kind of bovine student polis cannot decipher whether a candidate is full of something resembling shit? Apparently we are that mindless herd, at least for a few weeks out of every school year. We cast our ballots, perhaps reluctantly or half-heartedly, in favour of lofty abstract goals that have little hope of achievement. In the absence of persuasive reasons, we vote for candidates with persuasive rhetoric. And we do this knowingly every year.
But what if things were different? What if SAC elections were something in which we actually wanted to participate? What might this attractive model of SAC look like? The changes we have in mind are hardly radical. They are neither flashy, nor hyperbolic. The SAC we want to see has more of the things we like, but it also has a hell of a lot less of the stuff we don’t.
Case in point: The range of idealistic, level-headed, and just plain batty proposals being heard from our candidates over an issue it seems most everyone has some sort of stake in-the discounted SAC TTC Metropass, currently being offered at the generously reduced price of $87 per month, compared to the regular rate of $99 per month.
At the time that this discount was announced last year, it was rightly looked upon as an indication that student council could, unbelievably, do something right. After years of negotiations, U of T students were finally given a break, and while it is no great sum, it shouldn’t be taken for granted. Still, some candidates have the audacity to say that they could do better-the lowest bidder at the moment promises $60 per month. Obviously they haven’t any idea of what’s going on at the TTC right now. If they did, they would be aware that the TTC is in the midst of a funding crisis, and is about to hike its single ticket fare by 25 red cents. Our apologies to the candidates, but we’re not going to fall for that one. Reducing the queue to buy these discounted Metropasses, on the other hand? Now that’s a truly noble pursuit. How about selling them at a few extra locations? As far as a reason for casting a ballot goes, that’s a pretty good start.
Dubious special interests that fall outside the scope of a student government: This one never fails to amaze us. Candidates who would like to represent a culturally, politically and ethnically diverse student body should not bank too heavily on endorsements from one or two specific groups as evidence of their ability to govern. This is apart from how powerful, influential, or “committed to dialogue” those groups consider themselves to be. By gearing their platforms towards certain campus groups, such candidates must necessarily exclude others.
It is not part of SAC’s mandate to speak for the specific interests of this or that cultural group, but for the equity enjoyed by all groups and all students. Cultural, ethnic, and political groups exist precisely to do what a universal organization like SAC cannot-fight for their own interests, which presumably they know better than SAC anyway. Again, SAC should facilitate equitable dialogue, and endorsements from marginalized groups should not be seen as a minus point, but we need to remember that what binds us together, at least as far as SAC should be concerned, is our shared identity as students. The struggle for the emancipation of such groups should be left to in the hands of those who are there for that reason only. These are serious issues, and they shouldn’t be minimized by empty campaign rhetoric.
Don’t promise us the moon. We know we’re smarter than that. Now we need to start voting that way. We want to see a a SAC that understands what it can and cannot do. We want a SAC that has the basic needs of students in mind. We also want a SAC ballot that includes a potential Ms. President. In short, we want a SAC that will stop the devolution.
So when you head to the polls today, ask yourself what kind of SAC you want. Is it a progressive one? That’s the kind that we want.
