By: Ochi, Maduabuchi
There is a certain level of accountability that is expected from leaders. It is an accountability to the laws that govern the community within which the leader exists. These rules bind every person within the community and leaders are not to be exempted. In fact, they should be held to a much higher standard than the followers, because all their actions are monitored, serving as an example for the followers.
A leader that flouts the rules, no matter how small, cannot be trusted. This is because it is not hard to apply the logic that allowed one to break a particular rule, to another rule. And when they disregard the rules that are meant to guide the community, what stops them from disregarding the people who put them there in the first place? The answer is nothing.
When leaders believe themselves to be above the law, whatever the law may be, it will not be hard for them to see themselves as separate from the people who the law serves. The truth is that the University community is suffering from a crop of student leaders who disregard the laws of the union.
The second semester is that election season of the Students’ Union and many faculties within the school environment. Normally, campaign activities are limited to after the ban has been lifted and till it is placed again. But any student will let you know that even now when the date for the election is yet to be announced, campaigns are in full swing.
Aspirants circulate their e-flyers and deface the student community with their black and white papers, claiming to be ‘building awareness’. But things have gotten out of hand. Weeks ahead of even the formation of the electoral committee that would deliberate on setting the election timeline or lifting the ban, most students can tell the people who are running and the exact positions they are going for.
But rules exist for a reason. They are not just words that are written on a paper in a corner somewhere. They are the structures that let the Union function as it is supposed to. Yet these aspiring politicians seem not to realise. They do these things with no thought as to the fact that they are actually breaking the law.
The line between ‘raising awareness’ and campaigning has been crossed. In a functioning society, such actions should be punished. But they aren’t, and it creates an environment that makes such behaviour seem acceptable. They cross the line each moment, using a thin veil as their only defence. They expend an ‘awareness’ hinged on their expiration.
Why wouldn’t they desecrate the golden rule? When there are no consequences to doing so. Those who came before them did it and faced no consequences. They had set a precedence and now these leaders are only following in their footsteps. It is the new meta, doing otherwise appears as though it puts one at a disadvantage.
The truth is that this attitude towards rule-breaking is reflected in the wider university community. Politicians and organisations on campus deface the campus grounds with posters and flyers and papers pasted everywhere and anywhere. From the floor to the walls, no space is left uncovered. This is done in blatant disregard to the rules of the university, clearly stated in the student handbook, and whose penalty has been clearly defined. Yet these people keep doing this without any repercussions.
This lax application of rules is held in stark contrast to the way the university treats students who express their God-given right to protest. These students, exercising their human rights, are arraigned, while these others in clear violation are left alone. The hypocrisy is clear and apparent.
But once again, this is still not a surprising development. We see similar things being done in the country. The university community has recently found it hard to stand apart from the worse behaviours of the wider society. The same view the government seems to hold towards people who are clearly breaking the rules, while they regularly arrest their citizens who hope to hold them accountable to the rules of the social contract that exist between a people and the government, is the same view that the university has towards these issues.
Rules were made to be abided by. They were made to be followed, regardless of the position or orientation of the person who comes to face it, whether they are leaders, Christians, Muslims or whatever else. These rules were brought into existence because they serve a purpose. By refusing to obey them, these politicians not only break the law but also prove themselves to be untrustworthy of both vote and mandate.
But this disregard for the rules will continue because there is no action taken against those who break them. A special quality of ‘law’ is that it is backed by a sanction. This must be an active and functioning sanction, or else it is no longer a law. And that is what the ban on election campaigns has become, a mere guideline.
Such has become the university’s rule against defacing of the school’s property. The lack of action against those who have broken this rule, which includes student politicians and many organisations on campus, has killed the law. The university cannot be looking to prevent the defacing of property and still be holding back on employing the full force of this law. It would be inconsistent with what it claims to be aiming for. But a university that is aiming to build a new senate building in the face of ‘having no money’ might not be a stranger to saying one thing and doing another.
