Campaigning for the University of Toronto Students’ Union elections is set to begin on March 8 as the candidates for executive and director positions will make their way through colleges and common rooms on the St. George and Mississauga campuses. Unfortunately, politics (student or otherwise) tends to be a dirty game with character attacks, misinformation, and flawed argumentation—all employed to distract, disturb, and disrupt voters. The purpose of this article is to make you aware of the mechanisms and techniques used for political manipulation.
Character Attacks
Instead of focusing on the issues at hand, some politicians will attack the character of individual candidates, an entire party, or in the case of these elections, a slate, to lower the reputation and character of a candidate in the eyes of voters. Character attacks are no stranger to U of T elections. Last year, the Change slate was accused of not being “diverse enough.” This is a classic example, since it’s a superficial claim intended to lower the character of the entire slate in the eyes of voters. U of T students should question such claims and criticize any candidates who attempt to besmirch the character of their opponents.
Vague Generalities
During these elections, U of T students will hear concepts such as diversity, change, solidarity, oppression, progression, equality, and freedom employed frequently. These are substantial words that require sufficient evidence. If a candidate claims: “I will work to promote diversity and equality on this campus,” students should have questions ready. What does the candidate think diversity means? How will they promote it? What concrete steps will they take to make sure these goals are met?
Post-Hoc Fallacy
This fallacy usually takes the form of “Since x became president, y effects happened,” and are mainly used by opposition candidates seeking to defeat incumbents. In a recent Varsity article, UTSU VP university affairs Adam Awad said: “As President of U of T, Naylor has overseen one of the greatest investment losses in the history of this university, the arrest of 14 students for protesting fee hikes, an incredible increase in the corporatization of the campus,” and so on. This is a classic example of the post-hoc fallacy, since it is suggested Naylor necessarily caused all of these events to happen, even though they all resulted in part from other forces. Be wary of any argument that tries to ascribe multiple effects to one subject, since they mostly never follow.
Labels
Depending on the stand a person takes on an issue, he or she will be tacked with a label. If you criticize Israel, you become anti-Israeli, whereas if you support Israel, you become anti-Palestinian. Canadians who criticized the war in Afghanistan are accused of being “anti-Canadian” and not supporting the troops. But criticizing a country or movement doesn’t necessarily make you anti-anything. Labels are designed to develop an “us versus them” mentality to bitterly divide the electorate. Students who might support a university policy may not be pro-administration, just as someone who criticizes it is not anti-administration.
Fear-Mongering
Fear is one of the greatest political weapons ever devised. Rudy Giuliani suggested that voting Democrat in 2008 could lead to another terrorist attack. If a candidate suggests voting for their opponent will lead to horrible consequences such as increased tuition fees, less diversity, and more control by the administration over student political organization, students should question these claims and demand evidence. Otherwise, they are simply employing fear to manipulate the vote.
So what should you look for in a good candidate? A good candidate focuses on their own platform, concentrates on issues that directly affect students, has concrete plans, refrains from taking cheap shots at their rivals, and participates fully in the spirit of discussion and debate.
Good luck navigating this year’s political season at U of T. It promises to be interesting.
