Shift from the Ubiquitous

Article by Kristan Gile – Beyond the Norms

There is only one thing that can be drawn from the recently concluded student council elections: PUPians want alternatives.

The political climate in the main campus is strictly tied with the dominant political organization, the Sandigan ng Mag-aaral para sa Sambayanan (SAMASA) PUP. From its roots in progressivism and activism, SAMASA is heavily connected with the continuing struggle of the students as they push for the betterment of the society. Hence, it will not come as a surprise that after many decades, SAMASA is ubiquitous in the university’s political landscape.

Almost every college in the main campus is led and governed by SAMASA PUP. In every student council election, they remain uncontested. They are a powerhouse in organizing and mobilizing students for mass movements, so elections are not an arduous task for them. For all the right reasons, their political organization is able to capture the liberal and unorthodox perspectives of the students, especially those coming from disillusionment and disenchantment to our current social institutions and political climate.

However, from the results of the student council elections, SAMASA PUP’s stronghold on campus politics wanes. After the allegations on corruption, lapses on several university activities, and the issues stemming from organizational mismanagement, their leadership and management abilities are being questioned. The figures from the polls showed preference with independent candidates and those who are unaffiliated with their political organization.

In the College of Education (COED), the slate Tagapagturo at Laybraryan (TaLa) ng Bayan is an independent coalition. However, some of its members, especially its president, have organizational history with SAMASA PUP. When asked about why they preferred to create an independent slate rather than run under the banner of the political organization, they said that it is never about positions or party. Moreover, they want to include different breeds of beliefs and ideas in their leadership. Despite their independence, SAMASA PUP members obviously supported their candidacies. The “TaLa” candidates were unopposed.

The very fact that they chose to form an independent slate says something about the current standing of the dominant political organization in the campus. After all, why would they run on a completely different slate when their ethos is still the same with SAMASA PUP? Simply because the political climate requires candidates from varied socio-political perspectives and not the one borrowed from a powerhouse. One of the ruminations, in case that “TaLa” candidates were opposed by a “real” independent slate that has no history of affiliation with SAMASA PUP, would they still run under their “independent” coalition or use the political capital of the party? If their former party was not entangled with several issues, would they still form “TaLa” which pretty much has the same principles as “SAMASA”? If there had been a genuine independent slate that ran against the “TaLa” candidates, they would surely win. Other colleges showed some patterns on this shift.

Opposition independent slates running against SAMASA PUP from College of Arts and Letters (CAL), College of Political Science and Public Administration (CPSPA), and College of Social Sciences and Development (CSSD) dominated their local student council elections. In CAL, the winning president Christian Ancheta is a former SAMASA PUP member who alleged corruption in the party. With his independent slate, they were able to secure the leadership of their locality. Ideologically-wise, Ancheta does not manifest much difference with his former political organization except his dissatisfaction and disaffiliation to the party’s workings. Why did CAL students choose Ancheta despite him coming from SAMASA PUP and manifested little to no ideological difference? His disaffiliation with his former party promises change from the common. His independent run entices students to try something “new” far from what is the norm. Aside from ticking abstain in their ballots, CAL students finally have an “option” to choose an independent rather than someone from the ubiquitous party. Despite that this choice could be—for the lack of a better term—a mere illusion of choice. This is the same for the colleges who rebuked the SAMASA PUP in governing them.

Meanwhile, in Sentral Konseho ng Mag-aaral (SKM), a candidate from a different political and ideological standpoint came as a dark horse. Frank Araneta, an independent candidate clinched the number one spot in the rank of the SKM councilors. He is the lone independent candidate to run against the SAMASA dominated slate in the central council, after Marc But withdrew his independent candidacy. The mock election results from The Limestone forecasted Araneta’s number one spot. He is affiliated with Akbayan Youth—a social democrat group, a striking contrast with SAMASA PUP—a national democrat group. Just like the win of Ancheta from CAL, it can be hypothesized that Araneta got the top spot because the student elections favored independent candidates. However, coming from a different political ideology, Araneta now bears the responsibility in providing a different angle and perspective to the ideological echo chamber in SKM. Perhaps this could start into the establishment of a party that will finally challenge the waning trust of the students to SAMASA PUP. Araneta’s first rank win in the central council is proof that students wanted something different.

The numbers never lie. Another elephant in the room is the hundreds and thousands of abstain votes in local student council and central council elections. These abstentions could mean two things: (1) the distrust to the current ruling party in the campus is worsening, and (2) this distrust could have been lounging around for years which made students apathetic. Speaking of apathy, the voter turnout still remains so low. In COED, only 20.69% of its population participated in the elections. Meanwhile in SKM, it is at 29.54%. The figures did not even reach half of its population. Despite calls for higher voter turnout, it still failed to convince and persuade PUPians to exercise their right to suffrage. It is concerning, to say the least. How could we say that the elected leaders truly represent the studentry with a less than 50% turnout? Externally, PUP is seen as a progressive and highly political university but during student council elections, students could not care less on who will become the student leaders that will represent their ideals.

Abstention is seen as anti-student. However, I beg to disagree. Abstention is just the manifestation of disenchantment to the dominant ruling party. On the brighter side, abstention is a political statement. It says that students want something new, something varied. It is a plebiscite for the student leaders to not only talk about their ideology of leadership but to translate their brand of governance that will encourage others to take stand and own themselves as leaders. However, it is not happening; because there is little space for genuine dialogue that is cut short and jeopardized by the clashing political ideologies. Leadership and ideology could go hand-in-hand; but if ideology will rule over leadership and destroy the balance, our campus will end up with an inevitable lack of competent student leaders, that in itself, is anti-student. We will only have leaders that can only spout leadership but cannot practice it.

Vox Populi, vox Dei. Election is not just a democratic practice. It is also a survey that tells something about the current status of the main campus’ political landscape. Now that the students have spoken, it is high time for the elected student leaders to reflect on their leadership. It is high time that they hear what the students want: diversity, alternativity, and novelty. No one could monopolize leadership—not SAMASA PUP or any other parties.