iMPAK makes it our mission to hold societies accountable based on their level of efficiency, sustainability, and transparency. We make it our goal to report as accurately as possible to ensure we operate in accordance with our values and to secure the credibility of our platform. After publishing our Political Economy Society article, João Pedro Tavares (treasurer of the society) reached out with the concern that the existing committee members are conducting closed elections for next year’s committee. Following this concern, iMPAK decided to publish a follow up article regarding the society. Mr. Tavares agreed to give an interview in which he discussed the details of the elections and its implications.
Writer’s note: Free and fair elections are the pinnacle of the democratic system, and thus a closed election presents a clear breach of these values.The society members were not told the elections would be closed, or that the president would be screening candidates, which marks a clear lack of transparency of the electoral process. This article is not published in the attempt to shame or attack anyone, but rather to hold the society accountable to democratic standards and to ensure it is transparent, efficient, and sustainable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Tavares is responsible for managing the Society’s finances and is expected to handle all issues related to money and funding in the society. [He] provides financial analysis and advice concerning budget allocation; as well as organizing the expenditures for all for which [he is] held responsible’. He is also implicated in ‘managing communications with the KCLSU Finance Office; checking and managing the society’s accounts and budget; applying for funding and grants; approving expenditures and handling refunds’.
He does admit, however, that ‘due to the society’s weak efforts this year’ he did ‘little in this position’. As ‘despite the guaranteed money by the DPE, our events were conservative in spending, nonetheless, expenditures did include tea and cookies for events, banners and pamphlets, as well as funding a social event at the vault’.
When asked about his experience in the society and relationship with fellow members, he stated, “there was a general issue with communication, as the committee didn’t seem to be well acquainted with each other. This meant that we rarely met, and separate meetings were often held without the rest of the committee knowing.’ However, he underlines that he is incredibly proud of the work the committee achieved over the year, as the ‘events that we did hold were successful and attendance was large.”
To our inquiry regarding the manner of elections for the following year, Mr. Tavares responded saying ‘the main issue is, the committee has decided that elections will be closed. In other words, only committee members will vote for the next representatives, and the candidates will be screened by the president. Despite my positive relationship with committee members, I feel like this is a huge problem. Not only is this against KCLSU’s regulations, but this disrupts a history of free and fair voting in the political economy society’.
To further elaborate on the process of the closed election, Mr Tavares states ‘the president is screening candidates and the committee will have an internal vote. The argument for this is that they will vote based on efficiency and qualifications. In the WhatsApp group chat, there was even the comment that elections are merely a “popularity contest”.’ Wherein a student representative approached the committee about this issue, ‘the society’s answer was “this is democratic because the committee voted for a closed vote”.
The President is screening candidates and committee will have an internal vote. - Mr Tavares.
However, Mr Tavares vehemently disagrees with this argument, stating: “how is suspending a democratic vote just, if those who voted for it are disallowing popular judgement? This is very problematic, because it favors committee members to re-elect themselves, or their friends’, manifesting blatant favoritism”. Especially given that the president is screening the candidates.
Furthermore, even if the decision of a closed election would have been made democratically (which it currently is not), Mr Tavares also argues a closed election presents a problem of efficiency. He stated, “since we did such a poor job as a society this year, what makes us qualified to choose? What gives us the right of denying the student body of voting? The very reason we have a diverse group of members and free membership is because we want to be accessible and we want to represent our members well. But how can we, if we are out of touch with their opinions, by denying them the vote?”
To solidify the lack of efficiency in a closed election, he points out that the committee has almost 200 members, yet in a closed election the decision of next year’s committee will fall on just 10 of those members, he further elaborates “when speaking of this conceptually, in the grounds of efficiency, 10 people choosing on behalf of 197 does not, and will not, efficiently represent the preferences of others.”
Moreover, he illustrates that “most of the committee is not from the PE department, yet they manage a 2000 pound budget of DPE money, and they are denying the members from voting on who manages that money. As a PE student, I’d like to vote for a candidate who will represent my views, and will use that funding fairly, and to deny the student body the right to vote, is not only illegal by KCLSU, but is ridiculously immoral. Disallowing a popular vote showed me that we are profoundly out of touch with our society members”.
He ultimately underlines that having a closed vote “is out of touch with KCLSU regulations, it is out of touch with common sense, and frankly, is absolutely disrespectful to the student body and the DPE, who have trusted us with such a large amount of money”.
Mr Tavares makes it clear that he “in no way [is] advocating for this to remove current members, [he] would be glad to see them re-elected, but in a fair, open and popular vote”
“In order to avoid a conflict of interest, I will not be up for re-election” he added.
Next, we asked whether they had appealed to the KCLSU about this breach of societal electoral rules. He responded that they “are getting in touch with KCLSU now. We were hoping the committee would change its mind with opinions from the student body.” He goes on further to say, “I’ve had over 30 complaints to revert this. The society has been approached by student representatives, and the chair of the PESOC has reached out to the DPE to revert what the society is doing.”
In a very candid statement, he offered “to this extent, I am still trying to hold a popular vote. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, I will not be up for re-election. I don’t mind who wins, I care about how they win. This can’t be a habit that spreads in other societies. I hope the KCLSU responds well to this, and I hope the PEsoc can come to its senses.”
I don't mind who wins, I care about how they win. - Mr Tavares.
We then inquired about a petition started with the intent to motivate the PE committee to open up its election. He stated that “the petition is intended to get the word out. We want to show people that a popular vote most likely threatens committee member re-election”, which is what prompted them to change the electoral process (in his view).
In terms of public response to this situation, he emphasized that “the student body is not happy, everyone I’ve talked to is outraged. But these are difficult times, which makes it easy to get by with a fraudulent election, when everyone is worried for their health and safety.”
Mr. Tavares ends with a heartfelt message, stating:
“I hope our student body is doing well, regardless of this election issue, students should know that if there’s anything the PEsoc could help with, we will. If there’s demands for a little party through zoom, or an online debate via forums and polls, we’ll gladly hold them. Our door is always open for our members and their demands, so please feel free to approach us if you’re bored with an idea in mind. On that note, please message the society about the vote, I’m sure they’ll revert this voting procedure once they hear from our members, the KCLSU, student representatives and the DPE department.”
To view the petition, head over to : http://chng.it/S8PgFZdM
Written by Ioana Tulea
Comments