I have criticized others for beating the Canadian Federation of Students drum unnecessarily. In certain university papers, half the news coverage is dedicated to CFS or CFS-related content. At the University of Ottawa, it is almost the opposite. Once a year, the motion is brought to the BOA, and once a year, the board shuts it down. People cry foul, and the week after, no one talks about the national union. Elections come and go, and candidates repeat the same line: I am not sure where I stand on CFS, but I think there should be a referendum on the issue. That is, for instance, Dean Haldenby's line right now, and is also the one that was shared by most candidates running in the general election. There is too much risk and too little reward to taking a clear-cut stand.In a way, "moderate" (or no-position) candidates have it right. Most students at the U of O, just like most students everywhere in Canada, have no idea what the letters CFS mean. Except, some students do care, one way or the other. And generally speaking, those students tend to vote in much larger proportions than their indifferent counterparts.
Now if I am a candidate running in this by-election, my objective is to get students out to vote. People who are already endorsing one candidate or the other are not likely to change their position and besides, there is much more to gain by exploiting the 90%+ percent that does not vote and hope to chop away a few percentage points your way.
So let us look at this a different way. Dean Haldenby is running as the candidate who does not have a position on the matter. He has two extremely prominent volunteers: Mike Cheevers and Ryan Kennery, respectfully in favour and opposed to joining the union. How did Kennery feel when Joseph Wesley Richards stood up and said he was against joining CFS? How did Cheevers feel when Renaud-Philippe Garner stood up and yelled his admiration and passion for the Federation? Was there not a conflict?
Perhaps less so in the case of Kennery, where he shares many more values with Haldenby than he does with Richards, but in the case of Cheevers and others in the audience who heard a passionate plea from Garner, was that not a conflicting moment?
It is difficult to beat out a frontrunner. Aside from outcampaigning the person, which is clearly not happening in this by-election, one way of at least getting noticed is by taking stands that go against the status quo. Joseph Wesley Richard II's recent blog entry where he clearly takes a stand on the issue shows that he might still find his base.
Photo courtesy of Jason Chiu. The SFUO2 Blog™ exclusive.
11 comments:
I have concerns with Dean's stance on CFS when he says he "doesn't know". I don't understand how someone who works so closely with people that are so passionate about the organization can say that he doesn't know enough about the organization to have an opinion on whether the SFUO would benefit from membership, or if it would be a bad idea.
How many presentations did he sit through from CFS when the fed was considering prospective membership last summer? How many CFS campaigns have been closely mirrored by the SFUO's campaigns committee? How much does the SFUO communicate with CUSA and GSAED, two proud members of CFS? If he doesn't consider himself well-enough informed on the issue after the last year, what chance does an average U of O student have of being an informed voter if/when this does go to referendum?
I respect both of his opponents for taking clear positions on this issue.
I would argue that a president who is him/herself undecided and neutral is best suited to put forward an informative, nonpartisan, and fair referendum to thst students to decide.
I hope that those who wrote during the last election to complain of the fact that not only were most student leaders on one side of all the referenda, but some actively campaigning for them, would recognize that this is the situation they were advocating for - an exec that does not necessarily support an issue's passage, but simply a fair and informative referendum on it.
That a student has not yet decided one way or another may not indicate indecision, but a respect for the importance and scope of both the issue and that it is all the students together who will decide.
I think that's definitely fair, and I completely agree. But I guess my issue is that I have trouble believing that someone with this much information available to him doesn't have an opinion. It seems like he's holding back to play it safe for potential voters.
Of course I'm not in Dean's head, but he's a bright guy. He's capable of forming an opinion, and these questions just jump to mind when I hear/read him straddling the line on CFS.
If he is holding back to not alienate a certain group of students, all the better - so long as he maintains the ambivalence when the referendum rolls around. He's been pretty consistent with it so far (not having ever expressed an opinion on it, to my knowledge).
If he keeps the neutrality for the referendum, he's keeping his own opinion under wraps so as not to influence the vote, and let the students decide - and isn't that what we keep arguing for?
I tend to agree with anonymous's analysis.
The main role of the president, internally, is to chair meetings and coordinate actions of the executive; the main role of the president, externally, is to be a spokesperson for the association.
Due to both of these roles, the president often has to set his/her personal opinions aside (though not always), and act as a "moderator" of the different opinions within the Executive/BOA/etc.
---
This is mostly important on an issue like CFS, on which next year's executive might be divided. If there is a referendum, it will be overseen by a joint CFS/SFUO committee, and it would certainly be more credible if the SFUO representatives on this committee are not publicly biased or publicly campaigning for or against. This is where someone like Dean might have a role.
When there will be a referendum on CFS, Dean will have the opportunity to cast one vote just as every other student. I still believe that his decision to not take position until then is not purely a political move, but it's also consistent with his position that all students should have an equal say through a referendum.
Mel, thank you for your input of my position of CFS, which at this point is neither for or against. I am well informed with what CFS has to offer, from being a national voice for student unions across the country to offering students an ISIC card with their full membership. I have sat through two CFS presentations and attended a CFS Skills Conference. The point is that I have not experienced the prospective membership to voice my personal opinion on the subject. In my opinion, without the full scope, I would be making an uninformed decision.
I also tend to agree with Philippe, in that even when I make up my mind I do not want my opinion to influence those of the electorate on this issue that needs to be voted on.
i have to agree with mel. if dean was running for the first time and said he has no opinion, that would be fine. but i feel like he is hiding his position and it seems dishonest.
and I have to DISagree with meemee (sorry bout the french, I simply express myself better in french). Qui autre que Dean est mieux placé pour avoir vu les DEUX côtés de la médaille? Il connait les pour et les contres, les avantages et désavantages, comme le fond de sa poche. Cette situation pour rendre une décision bien plus difficile à prendre. Je crois qu'un candidat incertain mais ouvert à un référendum c'est BIEN plus rassurant qu'un candidat qui est convaincu à 100% de son opinion et qui ne connait/reconnait pas les aspects désavantageux du côté qu'il choisi.
Well, I'm glad anonymous' position was taken so well. I must admit that his ideas are suspiciously similar to my own.
To reiterate - it's not dishonest to not be vocal on such a divisive issue as president; it's fair. It allows the issue to be played out by the two sides of the issue as seen by students without the SFUO influencing one way or another.
I find it curious that the neutrality of the SFUO president has suddenly become very important in this discussion.
I don't remember a time when any member of the SFUO executive was ever expected to be neutral about anything.
Am I way off base?
I thought that this year, the SFUO sent a message to students that neutrality should be avoided on issues of such importance.
Having said that, I respect any student's right -- whether or not they are on the SFUO executive -- to a secret ballot.
I think the fact that Mike and I are supporting Dean shows his ability to bring together students from all viewpoints. This is one of the many reasons why he will make a great President.
I think Joseph is a great candidate and I wish him the best of luck with the rest of his campaign. However, although I may somewhat agree with him on the CFS issue, the rest of his platform does not speak to me at all.
For me, the CFS is not an issue in this by-election. Sure, it adds a degree of sensationalism. Let’s be clear here. The rest of the executive is chosen, the BOA is (almost) completely elected, it is clear that this issue will be dealt with again next year (regardless of the President) and I look forward to the dialogue.
Truth be told: I’m going very weary of the whole “anti-CFS” side and the “pro-CFS” side that all too many people try to characterize student leaders as. I think it’s destructive to look at things that way.
The CFS, clearly, is a very political issue. I’m supporting Dean because I try my best to put principle before politics and do what I think is best for students.
Post a Comment