Editor,
After closely observing the ongoing AAPSU election, it appears that the union is set to emerge stronger, more resilient, and more dynamic than ever before. The intensely competitive contest among all aspiring candidates stands as clear testimony to the growing strength and vibrancy of the AAPSU.
As long as the AAPSU stands for and works for the welfare and wellbeing of the student community, side by side becoming the voice of the people of Arunachal Pradesh, does the check and balance of corruption of any ruling government – be it BJP or INC or PPA coalitions, etc – the AAPSU is validated, justified and it will be looked upon as the whistleblower, a watchdog and a shield or armour and challenger to the auto autocratic government or leaders and forces.
At the same time, certain neutral observations and prevailing public perceptions point towards key challenges contributing to the current atmosphere of chaos, confusion, and delays in the election process.
These observations are presented purely in the spirit of constructive public opinion, aiming to strengthen democratic practices, transparency, and fairness in student union elections while safeguarding the future of the student community and institutional integrity.
Based on general observations on the hue and cry, conflicts and contradictions, controversies and confusions, offensive and defensive games, allegations and counter allegations, FIRs and legal battles among the vying candidates and groups, the following factors appear to contribute to the challenges in the conduct of student union elections:
- Structural & institutional issues
- Frequent amendments to the constitution/byelaws: The practice of revising the union’s constitution or byelaws by the outgoing committee shortly before elections raises concerns about fairness, consistency, and transparency.
- Perception of bias in outgoing leadership: There are apprehensions that outgoing committees may influence the process by promoting individuals from within their own circles, creating doubts about neutrality.
- Manipulation of eligibility criteria: Similar to concerns sometimes raised in public tender processes, there is a perception that rules or qualifications may be tailored to benefit specific candidates, contributing to delays and mistrust.
- Excessive concentration of power in the election committee: The election committee is seen as highly powerful, with significant discretionary authority and limited checks and balances.
- Influence of the registration/screening committee: The body responsible for verifying voter and candidate eligibility also holds substantial power, which may affect fairness if not regulated transparently.
- Legal disputes and litigations, filing of FIRs, counter-FIRs, and court cases by aggrieved candidates often delays the election process and escalates tensions.
- Operational & political challenges
- Aggressive campaign practices: Election processes at various levels often witness both offensive and defensive strategies driven by vested interests, affecting the integrity of the system.
- Role of money and muscle power: Increasing involvement of financial resources and physical influence creates unhealthy competition and undermines the spirit of student democracy.
- Interference by external influences: The involvement of non-student actors or external forces complicates what should ideally remain an internal and democratic student exercise.
- Deficiencies in the existing constitution: Structural gaps or ambiguities in the union’s constitution may be a root cause of recurring disputes and confusion.
- Suggested reforms & policy considerations
- Regional rotation of leadership: Consider a rotational system for the president’s post between eastern and western regions of Arunachal to ensure balanced representation and inclusivity.
- Fixed and short tenure: Limit the tenure of the union to one year to ensure accountability and regular democratic renewal.
- Eligibility criteria – Academic status: Only regular college/university students should be eligible to contest elections.
- Age limit regulation: A clearly defined age limit should be introduced to maintain the student character of the body.
- Political neutrality: Candidates should not hold formal affiliations with political parties to preserve the non-partisan nature of student unions.
- Restrictions based on professional status: Individuals with significant business interests (eg, major contractors or businessmen) may be restricted to prevent undue influence.
- Clarity on disqualification (family/professional status): Guidelines may be framed regarding eligibility in cases such as advanced family responsibilities to maintain fairness and relevance.
- Clear impeachment procedures: Well-defined provisions for impeachment or removal from office should be incorporated to ensure accountability.
- Additional recommendations (new inputs)
- Independent election oversight body: Establish an independent or third-party supervisory panel to ensure neutrality in election conduct.
- Code of conduct for candidates: Introduce and strictly enforce a model code of conduct to regulate campaign behaviour.
- Transparent voter list publication: Publish verified voter lists well in advance to avoid disputes during the election process.
- Use of digital systems: Introduce digital registration, monitoring, or even voting mechanisms to enhance transparency and efficiency.
- Spending limits and audit mechanism: Fix a ceiling on campaign expenditure and mandate disclosure/audit of funds used by candidates.
- Strict prohibition of violence and intimidation: Zero tolerance policy against threats, coercion, or physical force.
- Time-bound election calendar: A fixed election schedule should be mandated, with minimal scope for arbitrary delays.
- Grievance redressal mechanism: Establish a fast-track system to address complaints without disrupting the entire election.
- Awareness and ethical training: Conduct orientation programmes on democratic values, ethics, and leadership for candidates and voters.
- Suggested dos and don’ts
Some suggested dos:
– Ensure transparency and fairness at every stage.
– Encourage healthy and issue-based campaigning.
– Maintain student-centric leadership and participation.
– Promote unity, discipline, and democratic values.
– Respect institutional processes and decisions.
Some suggested don’ts:
– Avoid last-minute rule changes for vested interests.
– Do not allow money, muscle, or external interference.
– Avoid personal attacks, violence, or intimidation.
– Do not misuse legal processes to deliberately delay elections
– Avoid politicisation that undermines student welfare.
Conclusion:
These observations are presented purely in the spirit of constructive public opinion, aiming to strengthen democratic practices, transparency, and fairness in student union elections while safeguarding the future of the student community and institutional integrity.
The state government may also give some directives or make a special legislation on the students’ body’s functioning and conduct of its elections.
This way transformation, reformation and change should continue to take place even in the students realms.
It’s a general observation with offence to none.
Kon Jirjo Jotham