Election Analysis
If voter turnout is the litmus test for political activity in a society, the Concordia Student Union election would fail to prove that. Yes, we are politically charged and we love to engage in activism and such. However, we tend to be absent when it comes to the basest form of political activity, and the reasons are plentiful.
We do not know what the CSU is, have paper deadlines and exams to think about, are apathetic, dislike political drama at university level, the CSU does not cater to the “real” issues that most of us are involved in, and so on and so forth.
Whatever the reasons, students must be reminded that the CSU is operated with funds that they (the students) have contributed to from their tuition, therefore the sense of ownership needs to be implanted in their heads. Lex Gill and team hit the nail on the head with a platform that told us this is OUR Concordia.
My post-election analysis: Action was without a doubt the more efficient and better-funded group, who most speculate had taken on the consultation services of CSU Teflon Don, Amine Dabchy. The team itself was not shabbily constructed, with most members already having some type of political career. One would have assumed this was going to be a slam-dunk for the business-as-usual Action folks, but, thankfully, there was hope.
Enter Lex Gill and the Your Concordia team—a bunch of guys who’ve been on the anti-CSU, anti-BoG, anti-bottled water, anti-tuition fee increase, anti-many things circuit this past year. Every campaign they partook in evidently positioned them with regards to the March election, and with all the attention they had garnered, they proved to be a formidable force.
Plan-wise, both parties seemed to have the same message, so it was obvious we were not going to vote on ideas. My vote came down to whom I thought had a genuine reason for running. No popularity contests, no candy, no gimmicks. It also came down to not voting for a reincarnation of “Fusion” because, last I remember, change is a fundamental component of democracy (including democracy within the student setting).
I voted Your Concordia, despite my displeasure with the Morgan Pudwell ‘Lieberman-esque’ move. Within the council section, my criteria included voting for all independent candidates followed by selecting an equal number of men and women from both sides of the aisle (preferably those with cool names). My belief is that council must be balanced in order to have an effective CSU.
Overall, a bland election with a great outcome.
—Ayanda Keith Dube,
Political Science & Economics
This article originally appeared in Volume 31, Issue 29, published April 5, 2011.
