A Proposal for StuCo: Co-Presidents
Address the mental health issue. Revisit the Vs policy. Boost Exeter spirit. Improve the D-hall experience. Again and again we have seen these phrases being brought up in the candidate statements from those who are running for Student Council (StuCo) positions in recent days. Whether they are simply making a promise or they actually have concrete ideas on how to address these issues, they run for presidency (or vice-presidency or secretaryship) out of a purpose to help our school to be a better place. Yet, as time has shown repeatedly, StuCo has not been very efficient in making the promised changes—at least in the view of many fellow Exonians. In addressing this fundamental issue, I propose the idea of cooperative leaderships in StuCo, where the Executive Board can have multiple presidents, vice presidents and secretaries. (Clubs have multiple co-heads, dorms have multiple proctors and classes have multiple representatives, so why can’t StuCo have multiple presidents?) As unorthodox as it may sound, this proposal may have surprisingly positive effects on the efficacy and impact of StuCo on campus.
First, it must be stressed that the nature of StuCo politics is fundamentally different from that of national politics. The current divide between U.S. presidential candidates greatly rests upon what the problems are, while the divide between the StuCo Executive Board candidates is mostly about how to solve the problems. Moreover, upon a more careful analysis, we can see that the solutions that the StuCo candidates propose are not that contradictory; they are simply distinct approaches to solve the same problems. Therefore, the notion of cooperative leaderships still holds.
For those who are still skeptical about the idea behind the proposal, here is a (not-so-great) analogy to cooperative leaderships: You walk into a clothing store, and suddenly you are immersed in the countless number of items, all competing for your attention and trying to demonstrate that they fit you the best. Instead of choosing only one “best” item, you go around, pick those that fit your taste and go to the cash register and buy all of them. Then, for each day you rotate through those clothes, trying various combinations—and you look great for most of the time.
As the leaders of StuCo, they not only need to manage the affairs but also need to be part of the team
The same applies to voting between the candidates. If the platforms do not contradict with each other, there is no real issue with choosing multiple candidates. Once elected, they can work together as a team, as some people’s good ideas can be complemented by other’s strong personal skills in putting forward and implementing those ideas—remember that two heads are better than one! Also, there is an added benefit from the shopping analogy: there are no additional costs in electing two or even three presidents instead of one, making cooperative leadership an option without significant drawbacks.
A potential effect of this change is the decreased distinction between presidents, vice-presidents and even secretaries. This is fine since the assignments of roles among them can happen spontaneously once the group is selected. As the difference between the responsibilities of each position is hardly manifested in the respective candidate statements, we see less need for people to run for presidents and vice-presidents separately. Removing this distinction thus also gives more degrees of freedom to the election process.
One may argue that co-presidency will undermine the status of StuCo presidency. I agree with this view, except that I believe that the effect will not go far beyond looking a bit less competitive on college app (which, unfortunately, is likely a major motive for some students to run for these positions). As the leaders of StuCo, they not only need to manage the affairs but also need to be part of the team, contributing their thoughts and efforts just like everyone else should. On the other hand, I am not proposing to totally abolish the election process and make it a free-for-all game; to be a successful candidate, one still needs to gain support from fellow Exonians and pass the ultimate test of votes, thus ensuring the legitimacy of StuCo.
This proposal is, after all, a proposal, and it is improbable that we can have multiple presidents for this year. However, I am still eager to see a system where more people with great ideas can contribute to StuCo and work together towards satisfying solutions to the problems. As the Harkness table shows us the power of conversations and collaborations, we shall also utilize that power in StuCo in order to achieve a better future for Exeter.