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.
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
Not present at the debate.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
“Your link to pink”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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’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.