Though it’s typical to dismiss SAC as irrelevant and to blame student apathy for the organization’s diminished profile, the current election-with five of six executive positions uncontested-suggests that students who want to make a difference in their school community are finding other, more interesting ways to do so.
Current prez Paul Bretscher blames the lack of new candidates on SAC’s “scandal-free” year, implying that the student body trusts this current crop of politicians enough to give them another go-round in office.
While the current council has indeed run a clean ship, a more apt description of the year-and one more telling of why students aren’t interested in governance-would be “interest-free.”
The knock against student governance in general is that tuition, labour issues, and, of course, internal politics, dominate the agenda, seemingly dwarfing any educational or social issues of greater importance. This year’s council has done some solid work in these latter areas, including creating a more streamlined Metropass sale system and helping to institute a new African Studies program, among other initiatives.
But the council has done little to publicize their new endeavours (besides the TTC deal), and the old perception of council’s priorities remains.
If Stephen Harper’s recent media-relations troubles and George Bush’s bizarre silences on Cheney and the Dubai ports story can teach next year’s council anything, it’s that their best ideas aren’t worth a thing if nobody knows about them, and if they don’t explain what they’re doing, others will gladly assume the worst.
SAC needs to remember that image is everything in politics. If you’re going to claim to be informed, hard-working leaders, it is important to appear professional and knowledgeable about the issues you are championing. This is not always the case when SAC weighs in.
The debate over the recent Arbor Room closure is a textbook example. While well-meaning and important, the petitions and protests were marked by an amateurish style that made intelligent discussion difficult. The petition was rife with inaccuracies that a trip to see Hart House warden Margaret Hancock would have avoided, and the demonstration outside the stewards’ meeting was hijacked by union reps who trumpeted their own causes.
This example is not meant to paint our current executives as incompetent; the Progress ticket has been responsive to student needs and, as Bretscher pointed out, there were no manila envelope payoffs in King’s College Circle to wonder at.
But the Arbor case and others like it does depict the organization as one that doth protest too much without the facts or a coherent plan of action.
This perception is keeping new, energetic candidates away, and, in an unfortunate paradox, it will take some new blood at the executive level to attract motivated student leaders who are currently excelling at the clubs level (often, incidentally, at much less pay than the SAC executives). The bright young leaders that could slog it out in office are instead snipping minimal red tape and effecting real change through their extra-curricular groups.
If SAC wants new candidates it has got to improve its image-that much can’t be contested.
