For those of you expecting my usual satirical poke at Rhodes’
or the SRC’s latest shortcomings, I apologise in advance: this post is a
departure from my recent tongue-firmly-in-cheek style, and for good reason. The
SRC elections, I have decided, are a subject that warrant serious
consideration. As much as many students would want me to believe, these
elections are no joke. We are in the process of choosing people who would
represent us, the entire student body, speaking with our voice.
The Grazzle last night was… long (4 hours long). Long, I say,
but not a waste of time. Rather to the contrary, I found it to be crucial in my
making an informed decision about who
I want speaking for me next year, instead of just picking the best poster, nicest
smile or catchiest catchphrase.
Though there were some fantastic candidates up on the podium,
there was a lot at the Grazzle to be disappointed about. Overall, it showed the
general lack of maturity on the part of us students. We complain about ineffective
or ineffectual leaders in the SRC, who (as much criticism pointed out) don’t
deliver on their promises, delay societies’ much-needed funds, and generally
contribute to and justify the prevailing mindset of student apathy at Rhodes. But
we have to remember one disconcerting fact: we’re the ones who chose these
leaders.
Now, I say “immature” because that is what the air at the
Grazzle was. I say “immature” because much of the Grazzle was just a spectacle:
of jibes, of emotionally-driven arguments, and sometimes even personal attacks
stemming from presumptive natures. One guy in front of me had even brought
popcorn for ‘the show’.
We are, it seems, a student body that is easily tricked and
blind-sided by demagogy and this new-age obsession with highfalutin, largely
irrelevant revolutionary vocabulary. Take, for example, Malaika Mahlatsi’s
opening salutation: “greetings, sons and daughters of the earth”. Her being in
first year and having no real leadership qualifications, as well as her claims
that “the people don’t need liberators, they shall liberate themselves” are
concerning, as is her opening line: “I promise nothing”. She says that she will
change the agenda to meet the needs to the people, and engage with students via
various communication channels (ad SRC
naseum, blah blah blah), but what
kind of office will operate effectively without having a defined, clear goal
that doesn’t beat around the bush?
Another problem (and one that I’ve been rightfully chided on by Jean-Michel Gaud) is loyalist voting. I’ll admit, Brad Bense is a friend of
mine. Gaud’s criticism made me realised that I – no, all of us at Rhodes – need
to be more critical about whose name we tick come the election day. At the
Grazzle, there was much screaming and cheering for candidates whom, I’ll be
honest, I hadn’t seen anything about but posters. We’re in danger of this
becoming a popularity contest where unlimited printing credit is key.
We’re also immature because we get played so easily by
emotionally-charged appeals. Take, for
example, Carey Frazer. Running for SRC Projects Manger, she all but begged the
audience for their votes in an emotionally-charged tone of near desperation.
Her campaign promised to highlight “social events” and touched on that old, cliché
Dean of Students chestnut of No Alcohol. What, I wanted to ask, is her drive to
make campaigns and projects that matter? For the past year I have been trying –
and mostly failing – to succeed in my desire to erect a Reverse-osmosis filtration
unit on campus, allowing everyone at Rhodes safe, clean water and freedom from
the maybe-toxic, we-don’t-really-know municipal water that tastes like an iron
bar dipped in mud. The thing is, I lack the resources, official backing and
contacts to make such a project simple and possible: Carey could do much more
than I, and yet her biggest concern is turning the SRC into the Hellenic
Society or some other such Mare central.
Another problem: “AH!
SHEE! YOH!"
Words to this effect punctuated almost every response and question. Mohammed
Shabangu (who really, really did a fantastic job chairing the Grazzle, his
clipped and no-nonsense tone forcing questions to be concise, relevant and
to-the-point) has his work cut out for him trying to keep decorum. The problem
with this is that firstly, it wasted time, and secondly, it makes valid,
reasonable questions seem personal attacks or it overemphasises the usefulness/relevance
of the candidates’ responses. “Well, if you’d read my manifesto…” said one candidate
to massive, unwarranted and unsolicited outcries, making the member of the
audience seem a moron and totally deflecting the question posed. These
outbursts also makes everything seem melodramatic: simple questions become
massive critiques, and lead to a few storm-outs. We need, in future, to be more
level-headed. This is our future, not a Drama production.
Another worry was the tendency of “When in doubt, say ‘Purple
Thursday’”. A question I got to ask (to Ndana Tendayi, running for
International Councillor) was, “Apart from a few intermittent celebratory weeks
and the International Week celebrations, there is very little in place to fully
celebrate the diversity of nationalities at Rhodes. What do you intend to put
into effect to change this, and celebrate diversity more fully?”. She seemed confused
for a second, as if my question were stupid, and then simply said “Purple
Thursday”, to a massive, “YOH” and general, unnecessary cheers from the crowd.
She had, it seemed from the audience reaction, answered the question fully. Or
entertained them. I’m not sure which mattered more.
Sure, Ndana approached me after the Grazzle and discussed the matter further
with me, giving me a more useful answer, but by that stage the damage had been
done. Words in private will never sway the power of public words.
On the subject of answers to questions, some did their utmost best to just not
answer the question, or answer with a question, or just waffle on (the French have a nice verb, “palabre”) until the audience are too bored to care that they haven’t
been answered.
There was also an unbelievably drunk guy at the back. Always
a nice touch. You, sir - whoever you are - who would make a mockery of this
election, are a mockery of a man. You should be ashamed of yourself.
However, the most disappointing thing about the Grazzle is
that even if it changes the vote, it will only shift the results slightly. This
Grazzle was one of the most attended in a long while: there were maybe just under
200 people who witnessed the proceedings, and this is only a slice of the
7000-odd students that go to Rhodes and vote. The biggest shock to my system
was Sarah Price Jones, the infamous Pink Link candidate whose pink-centred campaign and
controversial video caused much debate (and, I’ll warrant, was the reason so
many attended the Grazzle).
Her video paints her as ditsy and
not-to-be-taken-seriously-at-all. Her speech, presentation of her values,
confidence, and her responses to the questions posed, however (at least to my
reckoning), were great, to-the-point and a real eye-opener. However, though I now
believe that she could actually do a good job as Media Councillor, I fear
that the vast majority of voters - the haters, internet trolls and incredulous students
who saw the campaign but did not attend the Grazzle - will never see this side
of her. In effect her campaign, I feel, has damned her, a promising candidate.
The War of SRC Elections is not won at the Battle of
Grazzle, but instead at the Battle of The Poster, Catchphrase and Video.
*----------------------------------------------------------------*
Here endeth the post:
you may read on, if you wish, to see a little bit more detail on each candidate
and my personal appraisal of their suitability for office. If you missed the
Grazzle, this wouldn’t be a bad opportunity to get some notion of what they are
like behind the poster.
SRC President
Brad Bense
“Umlungu”
Brad operated from a strong position of experience following his successes as
2012 Media Councillor. He is, I feel, more on-the-ground and cares passionately
about student issues. His track record make him a promising candidate, and he
has experience in the SRC. Only down points? His presentation was slightly
flustered, and his campaign very controversial - though we have yet to be sure
if it’s in a good or a bad way.
Sahke’ Badi
“Everybody needs some Badi”
Sahke’ is also an experienced individual, and didn’t seem as flustered as Brad.
His speech was level, clear and to-the-point, and his answers (except for one,
which was in the form of a question) were informed and relevant.
SECRETARY GENERAL
Mathaabe Thabane
A strong, promising candidate in an uncontested portfolio. An Honours student,
Thabane appears experienced, outspoken and no-nonsense. Her vision for next
year is thorough and builds on accountability. Flaws? Appears brash: presumed
Bense was being arrogant and called him out publically on this, totally
misinterpreting his words where she should have first sought clarity.
TREASURER
Alyssa Shawntay Williams
Not present at the debate.
Ntiskelelo Qoyo
Appears loved by the crowd. Promises reform on Societies funding processes,
and claims that he will aim for full accountability next year. Also promised to
publically publish the Financial Report in the various student media, but this
is a promise that has been made and broken in the past.
ACADEMIC
Vuyolwethu Toli
An outspoken candidate who seemed popular with the audience, Vuyo seems to
have a good idea of where this Portfolio should be heading if he is elected.
Victor Mafuku
A strongly-worded individual, Victor’s promises were many. However, his
manifesto doesn’t say with any specificity just what he intend to do to solve the issues of academia at Rhodes
(such as the abysmal Accounting 3 pass rate), and his conduct in the SRC
facebook page has been less than savoury and not indicative of a clear-headed,
mature candidate who can respond to criticism.
STUDENT BENEFIT
AND SPONSORSHIP
Naledi Pholo
Naledi aims at increasing the student Bail-out fund and the pocket money
fund for students on grants. She seems on the ball, with clear ideas as to
fund-raising initiatives and corporate sponsorship. She did not, however,
adequately respond to an audience member’s question concerning better transport
systems (the questioner was forced to live in town, closer to the University
and at a much higher rent, thanks in part to inadequate transport initiatives).
COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT
Thabo Seshoka
Thabo is running for his second year in this portfolio, and has a host
of initiative that he wants to expand, continue and build upon. His
presentation and responses to questions were good, but questions still remain
(at least in the audience’s mind) as to why he says there is “still so much
left to do”. “Why haven’t you done it already?” they retort.
ACTIVISM AND
TRANSFORMATION
Mbongeni Ngwenya
Mbongeni seems confident and has plans for the years ahead, but falls a
little flat with the cliché argument that he “wants to engage more with the
students to find out
their needs” (a
promise made by several candidates). His responses to questions wasn’t fully up
to scratch, and seemed a bit waffle-y.
Malaika Mahlatsi
Prone to silly phraseology (“greetings, sons and daughters of the earth”
– said not once, but twice), Mahlatsi’s campaign built on one confusing opening
statement: “I won’t promise anything”. A first-year student who claims much
experience in “various NGOs”, Mahlatsi’s suitability for office is
questionable, especially as she hasn’t yet had a full year at Rhodes. Her
response to Michelle Solomon” (a huge woman’s rights and sexual violence
activist) questions were not, in my opinion, sufficient. “The people don’t need
liberators; they shall liberate themselves”. One can only hope that her
apparent popularity with the audience is more an indication of her suitability
than her campaign, which seems to lack a unified direction and clear-cut goal or
mission.
MEDIA
Sarah Price Jones
“Your link to pink”
Building off a hugely controversial campaign, Sarah’s
presentation at the Grazzle was nothing short of surprising. Clear, driven and
confident, Sarah responded quickly and easily to questions (especially
tactfully to the question concerning her inability to handle criticsm), and admitted
that she had erred a little in her judgement, saying that the video was “made
out of amusement” and apologising. I
would have to say that Sarah was one of the more promising individuals at the
Grazzle (maybe because of my prejudice towards her stemming from her campaign?). One
can only hope that her presentation at Grazzle can overcome the image that
students have ingrained in their heads following her Pink campaign.
Lulama Qongqo
Speaking to the point, Qongqo aimed for more work between the various media
at Rhodes to allow for full accountability. She seemed set on maximising full
communication between the SRC and students (especially those who lack
internet), and promised many things: a text message service, a new website, and
other social media platforms, such as BBM. However, when questioned as to how
she would do all this and where the money would come from, she couldn’t answer
properly.
Kirsten Allnutt
Coming in strong off a very clean, professional campaign of well-designed
posters, and giving a strong speech that seemed to rub well with the audience,
Allnutt seems to be a promising candidate who is taking the election process
seriously, giving a clear vision of what she would do if elected (and not once
mentioning Purple Thursday, thank god). The only two criticisms I can direct to
her was her slight flusteredness at the podium, and her inability to fully deal
with two (very difficult) questions asking her what she would do in her
position to stand against the proposed Protection of Access to Information Bill. However, a strong campaign should work in her favour.
PROJECT MANAGER
Carey Frazer
Giving an appealing, lively speech and seeming to win the audience’s
favour, Frazer outlined many possible projects for the future in the SRC.
However, I couldn’t shake the feeling that she is trying to focus too much on
social events and projects, and is totally ignoring the possibility to create
lasting, useful initiatives and projects that benefit students for more than
one crazy night. Her speech also, in my view, seemed a little too
emotionally-charged, relying more on begging the voters than convincing them.
SOCIETIES
Amanda Green
Amanda, for some strange reason, didn’t give a speech, opting to play an
audio recording of her speech and then expanding on it. Though she aims to change
a lot if elected, I couldn’t help but feel that her method of interaction was a
little ineffectual. Her speech also built on the idea “what a man can do, a
woman can do better”, which is highly sexist (reverse sexism is okay, it would
seem). Had a male candidate stood there and said “what a woman can do, a man can do twice
as well”, how would the audience have reacted? Having a person in leadership
who cannot see these nuances would be risky, to say the least, even if her
promises to overhaul the societies’ funding appear credible.
Mufundo Makana
Calm and level-headed, Makana showed his ability to deal with
criticism. Many of the questions directed at him drew on his apparent failures
in office this year (it is set to be his second year in this Portfolio, if
elected), and he handled them with grace. However, the question still hangs in
the air: do we want someone in office for a second term who has, in effect, not
succeeding in fulfilling his previous promises and who allowed the huge problem
of societies’ late funding to go unchecked for such a long time?
INTERNATIONAL
Ndana Tedayi
Speaking confidently, Tendayi gave a lot of good points on what she would
do if elected to ensure that International Students are helped. She responded
well to questions (one directed at the “unfair” extra fees that International
Students have to pay) but failed to address mine own, almost fobbing me off
with a “Purple Thursday”. Though she approached me afterwards to clarify
further, I felt that she should have instead answered my question publically
and usefully, not privately and inconsequently.
ENVIRONMENT
Luke Cadden
Another promising candidate, Luke’s presentation was simple, effective and
convincing. When I posed a question about wasted food, he answered in a way
that was informative and showed that he had a clear direction in his head. He
addressed several issues, including paper wastage and adding that Rhodes lacks
separate, easy recycling measures. With a campaign that doesn’t build at all on
personality (his poster – the few that he has, citing them to be “incredibly
wasteful” – doesn’t have his face on it) and not perceivable downsides in his
Grazzle presentation, Luke promises to be a good candidate for office.
OPPIDAN
Sixolile Timothy
Sixolile means well. She has a lot of ideas as to how to improve Oppidan
relations and to ameliorate the dire security problems faced by students in
digs, but some of these seemed, at times, a bit unrealistic. She aims to improve
communication between the police and the university, but was unable to respond
properly to a student’s claim that she had personally been robbed, and had had
almost no police support whatsoever.
RESIDENCE
Khanyisile Phiri
Khanyisile built on the ideas of
improving residence hygiene, nutrition, safety and security, and accessibility.
However, personally, I found her attitude to be a bit presumptive: she singled
out my residence (of which I’ve been a member for three years now) and said that
it was dirty and unhygienic – a fact that could not be further from the truth.
Our main cleaner (affectionately known as “Pinkie”) has done a fantastic job
over the past three years, though I suppose I cannot speak for other
residences. Otherwise, Khanyisile had some good ideas for nutrition and safety
(always two big problems in res, though I’ve never personally had an issue with
either).
Tendai Mapuranga
Tendai’s manner of speech-giving is all fire and brimstone. Speaking out
strongly against “rules made in hell”, Tendai seeks to establish standard rules
across the board (making both female and male residences stick to the same
rules). I personally feel, however, that the rules don’t matter, but rather the
enforcement: if one residence operated on a laissez-faire
style of management, and another on a strict, tyrannical iron fist, no amount
of official standpoint can change that.
Tendai (responding to a question about the university packing up all the rooms
every holiday and renting them out) also seeks to “favour Rhodes students over
businesses”, failing to take into account the way in which this Rhodes ‘Hotel’
system helps to keep fees much lower than they would otherwise be.
**** That’s all,
folks! Happy voting!****
