Apathy in politics: Case Study the UBCSUO election 2016.

suoAre elections really the best way of choosing representatives in leadership? Should there be a mandatory percentage turnout to make an election valid? These were the questions that came to mind when I pondered over the immediate past UBCSUO elections that were held in mid-March, which brings us to the theme of this article, apathy in student politics.

Most of us are guilty of it, myself included, failing to realize the extent to which our inconsideration affects our long term benefit. Across various electoral boards, the phrase, “it makes no difference”, is the excuse many give for their non participation. The belief that individual votes do not really count, in the grand scheme of things, is in itself detrimental to the concept of democracy.

What interested me the most about this particular election was the social media buzz which came with it. Yik Yak, a platform that has some ‘Twitter-esque’ features with an anonymous identity option, was the go to for many keyboard warriors. Refreshing the app every other hour, a plethora of different sentiment could be seen; from the good, to the bad to the ugly.  In some cases people advocated for change while others propagated hateful comments, but the most popular ‘Yaks’ were mainly attacks on the Student Union. The legitimacy of the union was questioned in multiple instances barring an allegedly rigged election, which I personally also found interesting.

The fact of the matter is, under 1,500 people voted. Less than 20% of our student body decided who runs our student union and this is an increase as opposed to the under 10% turnout in previous years. This real question of representation, because can we say the views of under 20% account for the full campus population? Can we truly say democracy is functional in this setting? Could the apathy be a sign that we need to work on building the credibility of our union so students actually feel the system works? I think so. I believe the union can do a lot more to show what they do and how they do it, so students know the importance of having a voice in campus affairs and the benefits of unionization. Also I believe campaigns where students can collaborate with the union to further the campus society and local talent in our small community can also help alleviate this issue.

I will end this piece with one of my favourite quotes from, in my view, one of America’s greatest Presidents:

“Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Politics of Hair a part of “Rule out Racism Week.”

The Rule out Racism Week is hosted by the Equity and Inclusion office in collaboration with other campus partners including the International Programs and Services, UBCSUO, and SARA to mitigate the cancer of racism in our campus community .

thefro-1572689

The Politics of Hair event was hosted by Siona Coker, a 4th year Philosophy, Gender and Women’s studies double major, who prepared a presentation on black hair. She approached the topic from the concept of good hair as perpetuated by the major hair brands and media. Touching on topics including what hair is ‘professional’ , the problem with touching people’s hair without permission, and the differences in texture of natural hair, as well as appropriation.

rastafarians-1-1430384For a long time, Eurocentric beauty standards have been the order of the day and people who have not subscribed to these standards especially in the professional world sometimes face institutional racism. They are sent home from school because of their hair whose texture they have little control over, or are less competitive for job opportunities because of their ‘unprofessional’ hairstyles. Siona spoke on the reasons why ‘wearing your mane’ was a source of pride, as well as the damage that heat use (for straightening) does to black hair and the costs black women have to go through to be professional.

The discussion moved on to why touching peoples hair is a complete No-No, especially as it pertains to women, because of the long history of patriarchy and inequality in the system. It was revealed that hair is perceived as very intimate, and when people who have not been given permission to touch it, reach in, they reinforce the privilege that they have, more so when men do it. Many of the participants believed that their hair is a symbol of liberation, which when people randomly touch,  re-oppreses them.

Post discussion, I thought about why, in the 21st century, some people are still concerned about how people look instead of what skills they bring to the table. It is part of the reason why mitigating systemic and institutional racism as well as all forms of discrimination from our society. More discussions like these in our community can contribute to our minute quota in the world, in attempts to curb discrimination.