Time Contracts

"Bolu, abi is it Dr. Bolu now? Eh? Eh. How are you? You should be done, where are you working now?" Most federal school medical students have invariant responses to this question; a sheepish refusal, some hemming and hawing, an honest we still have 3 years to go. The reaction is always the same. Disbelief. Shock, incredulity. The inquirer, being familiar with the academic prowess of the student in question, does the math of adding seven years to the student's secondary school graduation date, then cocks their head to say "3 years as how?"

There is a contract that brings forth this reaction. This contract is a temporal agreement, that in the time span delineated clearly from A to B, this person will be trained to be all they have sought to be. For the friendly neighborhood uncle or teacher, this contract is only evaluated by how well point A and B are kept to and how wealthy the student looks before or after point B. For the employer, duration matters still, but wealth is defined differently. The wealth that the employer seeks is not in account balances, but in the word count of a Curriculum Vitae. Research papers published, positions served in, awards received, volunteer work, honors and distinctions, etc. Most of these are not gated. As many as are willing to try can publish papers, volunteer for extracurriculars, win awards and competitions, maybe even get distinctions (according to the promises of the "open marking" system). What is gated is the positions served. Only a certain number of people will ever have been president or General Secretary of one organization or the other. Most will chase their distinctions as members. 

It is interesting that these positions, unlike most of the other Curriculum Vitae (CV) fillers, require all the effort of a pageant if all is done right. Enough popularity before the elections, through whatever means possible, along with a great deal of posturing and posing can get anyone into any seat they want. After achieving it, minimal effort is required; the goal is to complete the tenure. Whatever happens during that tenure does not count. There are no grades on a CV. Hence, popular candidates who win by being "smart" can easily complete the tenure, provided no one complains too loudly or asks too many questions. 

Case scenario 

Student A and Student B are students in the same class.  They both have plans to study abroad immediately after completing their degrees here. Student A doesn't have any time for the popularity runs of student politics. He thinks it achieves nothing. Student B has that time. Both are active participants in volunteer programs and outreaches. Both have consistently been distinction students. Both are prolific sportsmen and essayists and have high success rates when applying for grants and scholarships. Student B has been Assistant General Secretary; he did nothing after achieving the position, focusing on all the other things in his life. After that, he was Public Relations Officer, then General Secretary. He never does anything much, but no one ever runs against him, and no one ever makes a case against his inactivity. 

The point of the story is obvious. On a CV, Student B is richer. He has gotten more value for his time. He has served his student association so often. Student A prefers to devote time to non-leadership positions. He is actively involved in multiple committees. He pulls his weight in those committees and has certificates and glowing recommendations on WhatsApp statuses to prove it. Sadly, they don't weigh the same. For all of Student A's efforts, Student B's headship of committees and offices puts him further into the Ivy League University favorability field. He is a likelier first choice. 

There is obviously an injustice here. Student B's lack of activity in multiple offices does not harm him as much as it does others. For his co-executives, they lost the chance to brag about great accomplishments in his office at the end of their tenure. A few people lost the chance to win something for their own CV, positions for which they might have shown better results. Association members lost benefits; the many benefits of an actual public Public Relations Officer or a truly accountable general secretary. To the interviewers at Michigan, Oxford, and wherever else, student B, irrespective of this history, is the best. Student A, for all his responsibility is only second best. 

In the end, the association member, who lost in an election against Student B because he wasn't as popular or grandiose despite achievable plans that he fully intended to carry out, and who, after that, tried without success to implement a few of his ideas as a committee member, has been robbed. The junior coming behind, who will have the most ineffective predecessor handing over the position to her, has been cheated. The entire association has been cheated in ways that seem small, but really aren't. The problem is not really that the wrong people get in. It's that no one tries to right them or get right people to replace them.

This is the problem of followership in student politics. Without a position, how good are you at ensuring that the watchers are watched? That the keepers of order are kept in order? The face of current happenings in student politics spells a rather rank unpreparedness. And at this rate, we will simply see the same stock of leaders up to Union leaders, Commissioners, Governors, and Presidents. We will forever remain content to be left alone in little corners, grumbling away while we are robbed blind of all the promises we are owed for the session-long tenures or 4-year tenures. We will always be uninterested, until election periods roll around again, and we echo the screams of propaganda and agenda. We know nothing of what's in the manifesto, nothing of what the campaign plans are really like, nothing of their track records. We are content to vote based on who is the best JAW WARrior.

Does this always have to stand? No. In reality, the greatest check to this kind of positional neglect is rather simple. At a restaurant, a poorly performing waiter if complained about, is promptly reprimanded and if necessary, replaced. If the executives are there to serve, the same logic applies. The people, the association are the untouchables. Not anyone in any position. And if the people are being cheated, they must choose to either speak up, or keep taking it. 

There remains a way to put a stop to this. And it starts here. As students, we can stop the president right there in the corridor or at the ABH quadrangle. We can ask our questions on the group chat or in a direct message. We can engage directly with every choice. We never do though. Elections will roll around again. In a lackadaisical fashion, no one will read the manifesto before the elections. The candidates will be under absolutely no pressure to release the manifesto early either. Press night will be empty. Manifesto night will be a crowd of yesmen and yaysayers. The unopposed candidates will largely be voted in simply for being available. And after that, nothing more will be said till after health week is over. By then, everyone will be happy to have had a great quiz and a great dinner. No one will wonder what happened during the other weeks spent in abject silence. Press reviews will go unopened. The manifesto will go unread. And votes will be cast irrespective. Break the habit today. 

Below are

I). Links to the early reviews for the current executives.

Review 1

1. New Year Tenure Review: Interview With The President

2. New Year Tenure Review: Interview With The Vice President 

3. New Year Tenure Review: General Secretary 

4. New Year Tenure Review: Sports Secretary, Special Duties Office, and Public Relations Officer 

5. New Year Tenure Review: Interview With The Assistant General Secretary 

6. New Year Tenure Review: Interview With The Treasurer 

7. New Year Tenure Review: Interview With The CODEH chairperson 

II). a review form for the executive team. The manifesto is attached to each executive's evaluation page.  

Just like in the second paragraph, there is a time contract in play. Unlike that between Bolu and her school, the executive contract is strictly tied down. Irrespective of circumstances, it can not be extended willy-nilly. Be a friendly uncle for the executives today. Let the 365 days plus of time be fully scored and scrutinized before the Health week amnesia comes back again. With your honest opinions and criticism, they may put in effort to ensure more of their promises to you are fulfilled at the end of the tenure. Thank you.

Salami Wisdom