The fact that the quality of living conditions on campus, among other things, depends heavily on the quality of leaders elected can never be overstated. It just is. At the onset of a new semester – the second semester, to be precise, normally fraught with politicking, campaigns, and elections at various levels – this comes across in various calls to stakeholders to exercise discretion and go beyond superficial considerations to avoid bad choices that will mar the session ahead. It’s so oft-repeated that it becomes underwhelming, with many in the student community seeing these warnings as mere wolf cries.
However, this observation by the Press is only a local application of a universal truth – that every society rises and falls with the quality of its leadership. In the UI/UCH ecosystem, this holds true even beyond the political sphere. In many other student organisations, such as Local Press Organisations, Professional Clubs, Literary and Debating Societies, Non-Governmental Organisations, etc., where leadership is by appointment and/or non-political electoral processes, the same note of caution must be sounded, as recent developments have shown that the university community is equally as affected by the quality of leadership in these arenas as it is by that in the political sphere, e.g. Student Union, Student Associations, Halls of Residence, etc.
The Perennial Problem of Apathy
Perhaps the most obvious consequence of poor leadership in student organisations is the setting-in of apathy in subsequent generations. The fundamental role of leaders is to proactively chart the course for progress in pursuit of an organisation’s goals and vision. When this is deficient, either through the incompetence or the nonchalance of those at the helm of affairs, there is a high probability of the members losing sight of the ideals and core values of the organisation, and it is only a matter of time before they begin to lose interest because of the indifference and lack of fervour.
Beyond the superficiality of mere activity, people want to know that being a part of an organisation means something deeper – contributing to a cause that’s beyond them, driving a transcendent vision, and making a lasting impact. When leaders are unable to establish this through visionary and proactive leadership, discerning folks can see through the smoke into the gaping holes that scream shallowness and foreshadow emptiness. It’s only a matter of time before they turn their backs. Worse still, they may remain as mere nominal members with no serious commitment or desire for impact.
Has it not been the case that just as good leaders greatly inspire members of a community, bad leaders are reputed to do the exact opposite? Should it then be surprising that with the bad leadership that obtains in many quarters, apathy has almost become a glaring perennial problem?
There has probably not been a more painful manifestation than the decline of certain Local Press Organisations on campus. Organisations that were once vibrant in pursuing and disseminating truth through impactful reportage have become mere relics of ‘the greatness that once was’. Pages that witnessed adept souls wield the power of the pen have become covered with layers of dust thick enough to qualify as paint. The hallowed streets of this prestigious institution that once witnessed journalistic surplus prowess are almost now screaming for lack of solid journalistic presence, save for some – all due, at least in part, to poor leadership. It is not uncommon to walk through departments, faculties, and even halls of residence, to discover empty press boards and, after subsequent online checks, empty websites. When traced properly, the answer becomes clear: a lack of interest. This is despite efforts by umbrella bodies – in this case, the UCJ UI – at resurgences.
“But why?” one may ask. What factors contribute to what is now playing out in the aftermath of this poor leadership endemic?
Managing Conflicts of Interest
Amongst such factors, the inability of leaders to manage conflict of interest would certainly rank high. Take, for instance, the recent issue involving the Faculty of Science Literary and Debating Society and their loss at the preliminary round of the ongoing Jaw War. According to the official release by the constituency, the Vice President who was slated for the round turned in a late notice of her inability to speak because she would be representing her Hall on the same day. This left the President with three choices: field a rookie, withdraw, or take on the competition himself. He decided on the latter, and unable to fully internalise his speech, he performed sub-optimally.
While the release advanced sanctions against the Vice President, the President failed to admit that he also committed to his hall (Nnamdi Azikiwe). The incident pointed to a deeper problem of having not brought up people who could step in at such dire times. The subsequent clarifications and apology from the President himself imply a worrying level of autonomy in decision-making worsened y the President’s interest in preserving his image.
Another example of mismanagement of conflict of interest is the Alexander Brown Hall Literary and Debating Society’s withdrawal from the current and all future editions of Jaw War. The conflict here is the effect on subsequent speakers coming in from the pre-clinical end vs seeking justice in the face of repeated yearly adjudication bias by judges and poor actions of TLDS UI Executives. Valid as their complaints might seem, it could be argued that their withdrawal statement should have stated clearer lines of action. Also, that consideration should have been given to future generations of speakers who have ultimately been affected by this decision. This would have cast the society in an even more favourable light and placed her in a better position for future negotiations, especially in light of TLDS UI’s unconstitutional punishment meted out.
Still in line with Literary and Debating societies is the Literary and Debating Society, UI, whose executives have shown a clear disregard for due process in managing conflicts that have arisen during this edition of Jaw War. From arbitrary decision making without consulting TLDS Senate to public statements that fail to disguise their blatant interests and motivations as members of L&Ds themselves, it’s been a festival of horrors to witness.
Poorly managed conflicts of interest in many quarters, indicative of flawed leadership, have, more often than not, dealt a dastardly blow to the community at large. The above, for instance, has placed members of the constituencies, and public speaking in UI generally, in precarious positions despite the majority having no say in the emergence of said leadership.
The Incursion of Partisan Politics
Another negative influence factor has been the introduction of partisan politics into non-political organisations, whereby certain student politicians from Halls, Faculties, etc., have been found to exert influence on many others within an organisation. While it may be argued that partisanism cannot be totally removed from the human experience in certain quarters, it can ruin an organisation if care is not taken.
The logic is simple: More often than not, such partisanism jeopardises the common interest of the organisation in favour of the personal or semi-collective interests of certain individuals or groups within the organisation. An instance of such is partly in the recent debacle within the Sigma Club. Individuals within the Club have been seen to exert their influence along Hall and Faculty lines and even at the SU level. Additionally, leaders in organisations such as the JCI, AISEC, etc., have often exerted significant influence in the outcome of deliberations and decisions in the political space, such that although it may not be obvious at first, they play a significant role in determining the quality of life on campus, however indirectly this may be. Religious bodies are not left out in this regard. In recent UI SU elections, for instance, the leadership of certain student religious bodies, have been observed to align their respective organisations with aspirants, much to the dismay of sections of the student populace.
The consequence of this is straightforward. First, the quality of decision-making within these organisations is affected as leaders opt for choices that would not displease their sponsors and supporters. ‘Scratch my back, I scratch your back’ soon leads to bleeding as the needs of the organisation become secondary to the needs of the leadership. Also, it affects the quality of political leadership. When members align their votes with an organisation’s leadership’s interest and not because of the quality of the aspirant, we get leaders whose accountability is limited. Of course, this is not to say that these organisations can not align with objectively superior candidates – superiority measured by ethical issue-based politicking and solid track records. However, more often than not, this is not the case. A third addition is that it leads to more division among the student populace. We are split along so many lines already. Actions like these scale up the lines of division even further, creating ‘us vs them’ narratives that carry on even beyond the tenures on both the political and apolitical spectrum.
Transition Problems
This is two-fold. On one hand, in some of these organisations, the quality of the succeeding generation of leaders has dipped, leaving gaping holes in the administration. Part of this has been due to the previous leaders not training and inculcating necessary values and competencies in the other members. The other is due to the aforementioned apathy. This trend is particularly observable among organisations with medical students, although not the majority. For instance, a walk past the cafeteria of Alexander Brown Hall would reveal a long line of notice boards highlighting some of the student organisations in the Hall. However, if you take a cursory glance at those notice boards, you will realise that a considerable number have moved completely online. Some have ceased to be active, while others have ceased to exist. The latter two can be traced to ineffective handover strategies. For want of a better term, a ‘saviour complex’ seems to exist, whereby individuals think themselves the only ones capable of running these bodies effectively. And this is to the detriment of subsequent administrations.
The other form of a transitional problem here is the switch from non-political leadership to student politics. We have seen student politicians emerge from holding positions in professional clubs, NGOs, L&Ds, the Press, and so on. And why not? Leadership has to begin somewhere, after all. However, the danger lies in equating their service here to capacity in political positions and also in the failure of these organisations to properly review the performances of said leaders for the knowledge of the public. This has led to the rise of an assortment of leaders who can boast of portfolios and CVs as thick as felled Heritage Park trees but who, like these blessed trees, can’t stand, unable to defend their performances in these offices when put under scrutiny. It’s glaring at Press and Manifesto nights when aspirants suddenly lose their tongues upon questioning by individuals familiar with their track record in these organisations. That is why we must be cautious.
Stemming the Tide
When it’s all said and done, the answer was, is, and will always remain action. We can debate these issues all day. We can make a hundred tweets and call out poor leadership on WhatsApp statuses. However, the situation will remain the same if students do not guard these roles more diligently.
On the perennial issue of apathy, leaders of respective organisations must nip such in the bud as soon as it is observed. Inactive members could either be revived or booted completely. If the latter reduces the numbers, recruit as many as possible. It can never be so bad in any student body that not one individual volunteers or signs up to be a member of an organisation. Again, recruit. Take members in. Except when constitutions demand, limitations on recruitment should be discarded if that would help sustain the life force of an organisation. Train the recruits as much as possible, such that even second-year students are capable of holding leadership positions. If apathy and even dormancy have set in, strategies for resurgence should be sought out by speaking to alumni to understand the situation of things better, consulting other student-led organisations to acquire strategies for growth and retention, and actively seeking out recruits whose interests align with the vision of the organisation.
Conflicts of interest also call for consultations in decision-making. For no reason whatsoever should individuals be able to take actions that affect the entire organisation without proper consultations. There should be measures to ensure autonomy doesn’t become autocracy, as seen with the Faculty of Science L&D, where a sole signature was appended on behalf of the society without the society’s input but eventually corrected by the Faculty’s executive council. This can be through a Board of Directors, an Alumni body, or staff advisers, as the case may be. However, this also calls for a deal of caution lest the avenues for checks and balances become controllers themselves.
Partisan politics will always be a part of the student experience. That’s non-negotiable. However, the extent to which this influences decision-making has to be limited. Organisations have to stand up against being used as machinery for the emergence of student politicians. In the event that they do, records of the performance of said individuals while in office should be shared with the general public, officially or non-officially, as the case may be. Members familiar with their track record have to speak as many times and as objectively as possible. This would require attending Press and manifesto nights and engaging others in student spaces. The electioneering process extends beyond voting and being voted for, after all.
Resolving transition issues follows a similar approach to apathy. Train successors! The fear of passing on the baton is minimised when you have trained the next set of administrators appropriately and offered as much advice as possible. It’s not enough to have members in an organisation. Utilise them. We must prepare for contingencies as early in tenures as possible and avoid waiting until conclusions are close to effect any changes. By then, it’s too late. The party is already over. And we will be stuck with once-vibrant bodies now reduced to news reports, social media posts and feature stories; if at all they exist to begin with.