The EPC sat down with Aditya Mishra, Nandinee Phatak, and Mudit Rawat from the Election Commission for a quick chat regarding the ongoing Constitution Review Process and the upcoming Students’ Union Elections.
Grey Areas in the Constitution and Expected Amendments
Elaborating on why the Constitution needed to be amended in the first place, Aditya Mishra stated that the main issue with the current Constitution was ‘structural in nature’. He said that for a system to fail, a lot of small structural parts need to fail in conjunction. An example of this was the system of Batch Representatives failing to act as a check in the system. He added that they are trying to fix this by ‘giving more power’ to the Batch Representatives by allowing them to step in when the actions of the President or General Secretary amount to willful misconduct. Nandinee Phatak added that the previous placeholders suffered no consequences for their actions for a very long time before experiencing extreme consequences altogether. They were trying to find a middle ground where the Constitution would take care of any minor inconveniences that might arise.
When asked about what sections are being prioritised for the review, Nandinee talked about the structure of payments as it is vague in the current Constitution. Fixing this issue is a high priority for the EC, considering that the existing structure of payment is unclear. Another thing she added was the situation of the removal of a Union Council (UC) member. The Constitution states that in such a case, the EC has to conduct by-elections. This was not feasible in many cases due to either the logistics or the timing and the EC is looking for solutions to this. She added that there are no provisions in the Constitution regarding the UC failing to conduct meetings due to time constraints or the removal of a member. When asked to elaborate on the removal of a UC member, she said that if any replacements are instated, they would only be other elected members on a temporary basis. A member from the EC, CRC or any self-nominating bodies would not take up a vacant post as they were not elected by the GBM to represent their voices. Additionally, minor things such as the SU fee being Rs. 450 but the Constitution still stating it to be Rs. 300 needed to be fixed.
Mudit shared that the formalisation of the Students’ Union Technical Team (SUTT) and the Executive Committee was something they were working on. Since these bodies were established in the last few years, the current Constitution fails to capture their structure and functioning. He added that they were in talks with Anchor in order to make the Constitution more inclusive. “An overarching vision to the entire review process was the unification of the GBM”, Aditya added. He shared how the election polling statistics were a testament to the fact that the GBM was divided. He explained that this could be because of the SU or the GBM’s lack of faith in the existing decision-making bodies’ ability to introduce a change.
When asked about the review process and its related deadlines, Nandinee said they do not have any fixed deadlines because they want to cover and address any suggestions the GBM raises. They would not want to reject valid concerns from the GBM due to constraints imposed by a deadline. However, they aimed to finish the review process by the end of September tentatively.
Lack of Involvement from the GBM
The EC plans to address the issue of the lack of involvement of the GBM in the review process. Nandinee said the EC hopes that the very occurrence of the review would generate interest as people have been more stirred-up than ever before because of the developments of the previous semester. Secondly, she added that certain minimum numbers for attendance and voting from the GBM have become impractical lately, as records show that the interest in voting and attending meetings is lower than expected by the Constitution. Hence, they want to adjust those figures to something more feasible. The EC also added that during the review process, they plan to release a Google spreadsheet wherein people can read the Constitution and share any concerns and suggest changes. The EC plans to address all valid and viable concerns presented and incorporate them into the Constitution.
When asked about the survey attached in the mail sent by the EC and the GBM’s response, Nandinee admitted that the EC received only 115 responses. According to Mudit, this shows that the current GBM is not very interested in the Constitution. The statistics of the Google Form responses are given below.
The EC said that some of the responses they received for the first draft were significant enough to be incorporated into it. Most importantly, there was a change regarding the independence of the press clubs, which led to the EC holding meetings with the HPC and the EPC. There were also responses critical of the power distribution in the system, and the EC intends to change that, such that there is a system of checks and balances between the SU, CRC, and EC. They hope the change ensures that no single body holds too much or too little power and can keep checks on the other bodies.
The CRC’s role in the Review Process
The EC was asked about the involvement of the CRC in the review proceedings, and whether that would change. Nandinee replied by saying that the demarcation between the EC and CRC would remain as is, and the reason the CRC is a part of the Constitution review is that they have a good understanding of the financial sections of the Constitution, and the relevant methods and procedures. They are also an impartial body that represents the student body, and having an external opinion is useful.
The 2022 Students’ Union Elections
When asked about the timeline for this year’s elections, Aditya shared that the polling dates are tentatively scheduled to be around September 18, 2022, and September 19, 2022. As of the publication of this article, a grey period is ongoing. At the end of that, nominations will be called for, and the EC will ensure that the nominees meet the guidelines. This will be followed by a campaigning period, where the SU candidates will attempt to garner support after which polling will take place. Specific guidelines would be in effect for all the phases, the EC said.
Aditya added that the elections would be similar to the pre-pandemic elections. Mudit further acknowledged the impact of online media platforms in increasing GBM involvement in the election proceedings, and said that they aimed to incorporate some elements from the online campaigning period into the upcoming elections.
Aditya also stated that the EC themselves do not screen or interview candidates in any manner. They only review their statements of purpose and check for general errors in grammar and such, and that they have been following guidelines.
The EC also made clear what repercussions candidates who break the rules could face. Aditya said that during the grey period they just remain watchful and observe how the candidates campaign. Any serious infractions would be punished in terms of bans from election and campaigning during the campaigning period. Further, as the candidates will be participating in a debate in the auditorium, any lapses in behaviour would be brought up there as well. Mudit said that using complete candidate cancellation is a move that remains within the EC’s jurisdiction. They mentioned that the EC has not resorted to using it very often in the past, but intends to implement it for serious violations in this year’s elections.
What does being a member of the Students’ Union mean?
Nandinee mentioned that the work done by an SU member is extremely interesting as they are involved in planning sessions and budgeting meets for student bodies. She stated that there were reasons behind the high levels of competition for these posts.
When asked if they had anything else to add, the EC wanted to send a message out to the SU candidates and GBM. Given that it is a democracy, where proper representation can only exist if good individuals run for office, they intended for as many people as possible to participate in the elections. They added that the candidates should participate in high-quality debates, and not resort to petty tactics like capitalising on other unfair means. This would lead to harsh penalties, but is, more importantly, a violation of one’s personal ethics. They asked that candidates not degrade the quality of debates, suggestions, or work done as a holder of the SU post they contest for.
The EC ended the interview by saying they would like to see more involvement from the GBM regarding the review process. As they intend to release multiple drafts of the Constitution before adopting one, they would love to receive feedback from the GBM. They concluded by saying that as long as anyone has opinions on the Constitution, they are free to fill out the forms that would be rolled out in the future, and the EC would love to take their opinions up for discussion.