On Tuesday, 12 May 2015, Queen Elizabeth II hall organized “Queens Decides”. When the announcement was made the night before the program, many Queens had questions as to what needs the program was supposed to meet. About 17 candidates were present; they gave their manifesto in about three minutes each and were asked questions by both the panel of judges and Queens. There have been mixed reactions to this event, some positive, others negative.
During the program, the hall’s chairperson said that the goal of the program was to better acquaint Queens with the aspirants. She also stated specifically that the executives were not endorsing any candidate for or imposing any candidate on Queens, and that the fee collected was to cover the logistics of the event.
The total number of Queens that were in the Junior Common Room for the “decision” was relatively low even after there was pleading through the public announcement system to encourage Queens to turn up. Many who attended could not hear the aspirants as the speaker used was not loud enough. Instead they engaged in small group chats and left those in the first three rows to listen. Those who did listen were disappointed. In the three minutes given to each aspirant, they had expected the aspirant to each talk about what they had in stock for Queens in particular. Instead, they all spoke in general terms of what they would do for the Union. For example, welfare for students, better transportation system, improved electricity and water supply.
Another question then surfaced: Had the manifesto slated for Friday, 15 May 2015, just three days away, been cancelled? If not, was it expected that Queens would not attend? Why then did the aspirants have to be compelled to giving a “mini” manifesto at extra cost when everyone could have had an easier life at the speech night? The argument in reply was that the speech night cannot possibly give each Queen opportunity to ask questions like the Queens decides did.
Some have argued that if Alexander Brown hall did the same, then why not Queen Elizabeth II hall. They seem to forget that our colleagues in ABH would probably not have an opportunity to be present at the speech night because of the distance, but such excuse cannot be given for Queens hall, located just a few seconds from the location of the speech night. If our friends in far away Obafemi Awolowo hall could come, then why excuse Queens. Or are they too prestigious that we just have to plan something extra for them?
If the executives then really thought that Queens deserve more than they were to get, then why did they have to put the burden on the aspirants? They have argued that the “little” money they requested for was to cover the logistics as the hall management did not provide anything free. For a while, one may wonder what particular favours they were doing the aspirants. Does the payment guarantee more votes for each aspirant, or does it add to the little time they have for themselves? No, the hall chairperson replied, no such thing is guaranteed.
Many have looked at this from the lens of the aspirants who are students as we are. If each hall of residence decides to also join Queen Elizabeth II hall and Alexander Brown hall to organize their own version of “decides” and chooses to receive payment from each aspirant for “logistics”, how exactly do we expect them to get such money? If each hall of residence follows this pattern, we should not question the aspirants when there are rumours of mismanaged funds. They would simply be getting back what they have given; there is no man who engages in a business just to lose.
This is the situation in which our country finds itself: When each person or group decides that they want to have a certain percentage of or get attention from the aspirant, we leave politicians desperate of the need to satisfy us all, not considering how exactly they would get the means. When then they get into power, we tag them as corrupt and curse them for working to get the harvest of the numerous seeds they have sown to get elected.
Although the Queens decides was necessary for better information at the “grassroots”, the planning and strategy was not efficient enough to achieve the set goals and objectives of the organizers and the aspirants. Hence, the need to consider if the end is sufficient enough to justify the means.
O’Lizbhet
