The scenes on the ground differ widely between the different Ateneo universities, but common problems and a shared identity still bind Ateneo student governments.

It was the last week of May 2010 and the Ateneo de Manila campus was barren, save for a warm body or two making its way across the red brick road. Inside the Faura Hall AVR however, the mood was very different.

Ten presidents and representatives from the five different Ateneo universities in the Philippines were busy deliberating. The mission? To create a system that would guide the five universities in dealing with the national government and their respective local governments—this, on top of their other responsibilities as student leaders in their own campuses: ensuring basic student services and addressing student concerns.

In the Loyola Schools (LS), the Sanggunian is at the receiving end of countless complaints—not just regarding student rights and services, but also of the Sanggunian itself. In an article from the January 2011 issue of The GUIDON, several groups in the LS aired their concerns.

“Pertinent issues keep popping up and the student council is never there to speak up about it and truly engage in anything,” Former Ateneo Debate Society Vice-President for Public Relations Steffi Sales said. Difficulties in running a student government, however, are not exclusive to the LS.

The GUIDON regularly discusses the issues (and non-issues) of the Sanggunian, but how is it doing compared to the other Ateneo student governments? The five Ateneo councils vary in significant and major ways, but they still claim to share common values, such as Ignatian principles and ideals.

Unpoliticized students

The Ateneo de Manila is no stranger to unpoliticized student bodies, and the students are only partly to blame. The confusion over parties and coalitions and vague and ambiguous party ideologies are just some of the factors that have caused difficulty for students to choose their leaders. This lack of constituent politicization is actually one of the reasons why the Ateneo de Manila student government remains highly similar to that of the other Ateneo campuses.

Sharing her own insights about this lack in politicization, Maria Jayme-Lao of the Political Science Department explains that, especially in a place like the Philippines, political agendas and parties are highly context-specific.

“Parties are sometimes almost artificial in the Philippine setting,” she says, referencing the lack of politicization of the parties themselves. “It’s probable that this nationwide model has influenced… similar unpoliticized bodies in smaller units, like the universities.”

This means that the political realities widely witnessed in the school setting may actually have their roots in the anomaly that is the national political scene of the Philippines.

Student voice

Another factor that determines and influences the approaches to governance of the different Ateneo student governments is the actual character of the student body they each revolve around.

One of a student government’s primary functions is to serve as the representative of the student body to the school administration. As such, a student government’s actions are largely dictated by the current sociopolitical needs of the student body. Yet, despite this seemingly inherent value in student governments, in the LS, there is always talk of the Sanggunian’s irrelevance to the student body.

“It’s not that [the Sanggunian officers] don’t really care [about their duties],” says Lao. “There may just be something in the system that doesn’t seem to capture [the Sanggunian’s] political valuation.” By this, she means that the Sanggunian might not be addressing the most relevant issues.

According to LS Associate Dean for Student Affairs Rene San Andres, however, relevance is still subject to interpretation.

“If a desire towards a higher purpose… is pursued [by an organization], then we can say that [that organization] is, in fact, relevant,” says San Andres. “Now, whether that [purpose] is geared toward the common good… is a whole different story.”

Nevertheless, regardless of the meaning of relevance in the context of a student government, this issue seems poised to dog the Sanggunian for the long haul. This matter is, in fact, reflected in the chronic difficulty of meeting the vote quota during the annual student government elections; some students just think it’s useless to participate in such an exercise.

Shared values

Unique to the Ateneo universities are the core Ignatian principles that empower the formation of every Atenean. In light of this, the different Ateneo student governments exert much effort to uphold their fidelity to the ideals of the Jesuits, despite these student governments’ differences in location, context and approaches to governance.

This inspires an apparently distinct Atenean brand of leadership—something that sets Atenean student leaders apart. As San Andres, an Atenean student leader from the late ‘70s to the early ‘80s, explains, this type of leadership requires not only the obligations expected of a conventional leader, but also the responsibility ascribed to plain civilians.

“Exercising civic responsibility to contribute to the common good is citizenship,” San Andres says. “Responsible citizenship is not a primary burden of the leader, but a desired goal.”

For him, a genuine Atenean leader is one who upholds the common good above and beyond his or her personal benefit, and moves those under him or her to do the same. Such a leader is to make sure that a great effort is directed towards a purpose or long-term vision beneficial to the greater population he or she serves.

Another Ignatian characteristic of leadership, according to San Andres, is servant-leadership. It is primarily a leader’s rendering of service towards the people he or she leads. San Andres explains that leadership isn’t about the forcefulness of the voice, the charisma or the persuasion; rather, it is about the ability to bring out the fullness of each and every one looking up to the leader.

“They shouldn’t be leaders to please the whims and fancies of individuals, but [to] collectively bring out the potential in each and every one,” San Andres says. He believes that this kind of leadership is, in fact, rightfully called ‘Ignatian leadership.’

For San Andres, a leader’s job is a way of giving glory to God—especially because helping one reach his or her potential is a distinctly Christian perspective of leadership.

Unfortunately, he shares that there are those who take up the role of leadership for selfish reasons. “[I’m] sad to say [that] in my job here, I’ve seen student leaders who are self-focused,” he says. “Most of them probably aim for those positions because it will look good on their résumés.”

Despite all these dynamics and complexities in student leadership, though, it boils down to service in the end. This is the very basic aspiration that binds the different Ateneo student governments together, even more so than the natural connections arising from the student governments’ shared difficulties and common Ignatian ideals.