Half-Nelson
rang@theguidon.com
It has become an accepted truth that many Ateneans are naturally apathetic and uninvolved. We hear this from our teachers, our local media, and the more active of our fellow students.
This call is especially loud every February, around the campaign period for the following year’s Sanggunian. We are ceremoniously called on to vote and not remain “apathetically apathetic.” We are told to make informed decisions and be more invested in our student government.
This is all well and good. All clichés are based on reality and the Atenean cliché of mind-numbing apathy is no different. But then it is also difficult to produce enthusiasm and interest in the Sanggu elections when some of the very candidates running for the positions don’t seem to be as committed as they should be.
Last February 16 and 18, the Mitings de Avance for the Top 4 and Top 44 were held. Candidates were given the opportunity to present their platforms and to field questions from a panel of student leaders. In the Top 44’s Miting, a candidate said he would install the Angelus habit in the whole Ateneo in his platform. Citing the declining everyday presence of Christ in the Atenean’s life, the candidate thought that a tangible, more omnipresent manifestation of our religion would help us in our spiritual life.
In the same miting, it was the SOSE candidates’ inability to answer a simple question that left the most indelible impression. The Council of Organizations of the Ateneo’s Secretary-General Margarita Lim (IV AB PoS) asked the candidates to tell her in one sentence what SOSE’s unique contribution is. Alarmingly, most of SOSE’s candidates did not seem to have thought about this before Lim asked. Though current issues like the Reproductive Health Bill and Ateneo’s strong environmental campaign are right up SOSE’s alley, many of the contestants stumbled. Some didn’t even try to answer it, passing the microphone to the other candidates.
Both fumbles are, to an extent, understandable. It’s true that a Jesuit institution like Ateneo is a lot more liberal and sensitive to different beliefs than some might want.
But that’s beside the point. In the first place, the Central or School Board Representatives do not have the power to make those changes. Though they are involved with the whole Loyola Schools, they are, at the end of the day, primarily bound to their particular schools.
The SOSE candidates, meanwhile, have always had the challenge of finding a way to make the SOSE community more active and involved in school-wide events. And Lim’s question might have given the candidates some insight on this. Maybe SOSE is relatively inactive because no one has ever tapped into their unique strengths with the rest of the community?
Unfortunately, some candidates may have entered the race haphazardly, without thinking about the position and how they can truly contribute by winning. Their own platforms don’t seem to be well-researched and well-rehearsed, as is apparent with all the stuttering and awkward silences. They make promises without checking their feasibility, content to saturate their fellow students with sweeping statements and empty words. They don’t even know the delineations and limitations of the positions they desire.
Candidates, if you really want to wake us up from apathy and continue Sanggu’s revitalization, give us substance. Give us inspiration and hope. Give us something worth believing in. Actually, just deliver a well-researched and rehearsed platform. It’s really not a lot to ask.
