Adelaide Student Politics

Eighteen students, divided into three distinct factions. Give them the opportunity to vote from among their number a leader, an underling, and various other positions, and it's no surprise that the outcome can easily be guessed long before the vote.

But every now and then, someone breaks the rules. They don't vote as expected. Actually, they not only fail to vote as expected, they vote in direct contradiction of their pre-election promises to their teammates (allegedly). Their faction gets upset at them. Who'd have guessed. Knives are sharpened, friendships are broken, insults are traded ('kingmaker for the liberal party' being one of my favourites. I mean, on a University campus, ouch!).

What could prompt a member of the left-wing of student politics to vote for a Liberal party member, who ran for a position needing financial acumen by referring to their experience in the Army Reserves? Ran against a finance student with demonstrated experience in the stock market (still off the mark when it comes to dealing with planning the Unions finances, but getting warmer nonetheless).

International students on Union board something of an unknown entity. And the fact that Fei Tang was one cannot be ignored in assessing his fate. The Internationals rarely show much enthusiasm for the whole process (see 'Attendence Issues' (July 08) for their attendence record), or much of a political interest. It probably doesn't help that they tend to have made their mark in the Chinese students association, a body which rarely mixes with non-Chinese university students, or even other clubs. To put it simply, they're not candidates one likes to see on Board, as they seem to have no constituent apart from other Chinese students. It's sometimes hard to see them as anything other than resume-boosters at their most blatant.

But quietly. Such doubts cannot be easily voiced, especially by other members of the Board. Activate and Indy-Go (i.e. the 'Left') have shown themselves willing to strike deals with the International faction (they got there first I suppose). Such a deal may safely be assumed to have been made in exchange for Lavinia's presidency. President in exchange for Vice-President.

The candidate put up by the Left and Passion wasn't fluent in English, did not convincingly answer their questions, and appeared to have plans to leave halfway through his term. John Bowers looked like Christ in comparison. With such a new Board (only three returning members), it is entirely conceivable that someone would have felt the pangs of conscience, and decided not to vote for the weak candidate they had been instructed to vote for. Loyalty to students put above loyalty to party and ideology perhaps? The Left should have seen it coming really.

The best laid plans often go to waste. Lavinia was by far the most experienced candidate for President. Despite an impressive, policy-focused speech by Mark Joyce (and an equally impressive response to some questions posed to him), he remains too much of a new face for this observer to have much opinion on him. His performance in the first Board meeting was unexpectedly competant, but it would have been a risky choice for the AUU had he been elected President.

As to the VP choice, well, factions in disarray over the decision led to what I believe to be the best outcome. Bowers may not fill me with feelings of security, at least he doesn't fill me with feelings of fear. And who better to counterbalance 'the Left' that is the current AUU Board than a Liberal Vice President.