AKOMISMO

Student governments have but one common purpose – to teach students how to run themselves. More important than having a credible slate of candidates is that the students value the process of electing leaders into power. This process includes the actual practice of voting (which must be technically sound) and the act of choosing the leaders (which must be judgmentally sound).

A free, fair and competitive election is the sine qua non of any democracy. To say that its conduct has been technically sound, there must be no doubt that all rules and procedures have been followed, and any discrepancy or anomaly encountered in the event must have its corresponding remedy.

Likewise, to say that voters have been judgmentally sound in choosing their leaders simply means that they made their choice entirely of their own volition, and without any form of duress or coercion. Their only agenda in voting should be that they choose the person they believe would serve them better. There should neither be punishments nor incentives for voting either way, as the voter must be free from any form of compulsion.

Only when both conditions have been satisfied can we say that we have had a free, fair and competitive election. And this in turn guarantees the health of a democracy, whether it is the nation’s, an organization’s or even a school’s.

That having been said, the past student elections in the Philippine Science High School has been rather unhealthy for democracy. More students felt disenfranchised in the elections than any in recent memory, and the process cast large shadows of doubt on its handlers. Some of the winners were denied a satisfying victory, with people either clamoring for the other side or worse, neither side.

Two major incidents broke out during and after the elections. And in these two incidents we can surmise that at least one of two conditions for healthy elections was not met.

First would be the failure of elections – let’s call it by its real name – in Jade. The numbers vary but the reports are unified in saying that a fraction of the class was able to vote for some of the Student Alliance officers while more did not. The Student Alliance Electoral Board attributed their ‘inability to cast their vote’ on everything from the adviser’s alleged lapses to the students purported ignorance. They were made to vote again eventually.

Second would be the uproar in batch ’08 after the vote went the way of Ellie de Castro and not of Chiara Lanuza. A petition was filed by a considerable number of the batch – and endorsed by their batch adviser, no less – who claimed that the elections were mishandled. However I have to admit that their complaints were rather infantile – the time was not relayed right, the forms were not printed well, the instructions to countersign were not clear, the absent people were not able to vote, etcetera, etcetera.

None of their claims would hold any water except one – that there was cheating. This is nothing novel in the Philippines but if they could prove it, then that would have been exciting. But in a legalistic process such as this, rumors don’t have much weight. I had opened the challenge to the batch to prove it, but no one has moved forward to this day.

Regardless of the batch’s motivations to petition the elections and call for a reelection, this is a good time to stop and think how we can avoid similar incidents in the future. Perhaps we attribute this electoral crisis to the advisers’ alleged lapses and the students’ purported ignorance too? We can only pin the blame on people so much. Eventually it all boils down to the process, which is ironically defined by people too.

Returning to the two requirements for healthy elections, the first incident is a failure of procedure. And while it can be argued that the class was no longer disenfranchised after being allowed to elect, there is a question now of whether their second vote was judgmentally sound. This would be the underlying cause for any complaint against this move.

The second incident is a failure of both. The procedure was not followed due to either the lapses in administering the elections or complacency in part of the voters. And to some degree, their votes themselves were not judgmentally sound. Inner politics in the batch drove the vote to one direction – and perhaps regretting this spurred the reelection petition – in what could have otherwise been a very competitive election.

I have to give the Student Alliance Electoral Board some credit for standing their ground on these issues. Their calls were not easy to make and lesser people would have arrived at far from amiable solutions as they did. When history judges this SAEB, kinder people will remember them as the batch that awakened all of us to the importance of procedure. But other people, especially those disenfranchised by the elections, would just say they screwed up.

After all, they had their lapses too. They are the primary arbiter of all election procedures and thus when the procedure goes wrong, fault falls on no one else’s shoulders but theirs. They really can’t say that the students should have been more aware. It is their job to make sure that they are aware. They can always fall back on the cliché that they “did their best”, but I would respond with an observation that their best – well, you know how it goes.

And to reflect that the SA elections often catered to one-party elections is crass and anachronistic. This ethos spurred the practices of announcing the winner on the same day, not counting a misspelled name as one vote, and adhering to other procedures above and beyond the constitution. If “It was undemocratic but it worked for us,” was one reply I got, then I am not surprised that this school has a political culture where the vote – and more importantly how it is cast – isn’t taken seriously.

But thank heavens we’re in a school where mistakes don’t get you shot. Running a student government is a learning process and failure here, is just as good a teaching moment as any. Future elections can pick up from this year’s example by implementing the following ideas.

One, if you intend to tap the advisers, then be sure to brief them ahead of the elections. Gather all the advisers in the Seminar Room for twenty minutes during one universal break, and tell them everything they have to do come election day. Perhaps, the advisers can even be asked to deliver a module on the importance of voting in their student government – although this is also a task for the social science unit.

Two, expand the membership of the Student Alliance Electoral Board to include other year levels. I don’t see why this shouldn’t be done. The SAEB need not be insulated from the process of voting since if there are voters within the SAEB itself, then there is a greater cause for them to ensure the integrity of the voting process. Conflict of interest, you say? Then that is why the seniors are there – to mentor those in the lower years.

Third, thoroughly review and revise the Election Code. I know too well that there is a need for this and the ultimatum for this to be done is there. But take note that whatever form our law takes, it must subscribe to the Omnibus Election Code which is the highest election law in the land.

And lastly, this goes for everyone, know the rules. While simple guidelines would suffice for the general student population, an excellent knowledge of the election code, at least by the board itself, will shape more effective guidelines that would protect the integrity of the ballot.

Our country needs more, younger voters. My only request is that while you’re still in school, you learn do it right.