Throughout the lifespan of all political institutions there are periodically elections that redefine the institution itself. This year's Student Assembly presidential elections are potentially of this nature.
Considering that the Assembly currently has approximately zero credibility and that the overwhelming theme of the election appears to be reform, it becomes necessary to establish what characteristics we must look for in the next SA president and what is needed to turn around the fortunes of the body. My purpose in writing this column is not to advocate a candidate, but rather to establish a criterion by which we can determine who the worthy choice is.
Looking back at the turmoil that encompassed the SA during the end of the Fall term and the resignation of Danielle Moore '95 as Assembly president, one statement remains prominent in my mind: that of Moore saying that she was an activist, not a politician. It is here that her failure as president lies, and we can learn a lot from this statement when choosing the next president.
While much of the Dartmouth campus will say that it is fed up with the politics of the Assembly, it is unfair to ever expect politics to be wholly absent from the group. Politics are inexorably intertwined with any large decision making body in a democratic system. While it is certainly fair to expect less political grandstanding in the SA than in the United States Congress, to hope that all politicking will be whisked away in one election is not only idealistic but also simply impossible.
So if eliminating politics in the Assembly is impossible, what must we look for in our newly elected president? The answer seems to be the ability to control these politics and allow for the SA to accomplish its goals despite them.
It is exactly this inability that led to Moore's failure. Just as she said, she was an activist -- an activist holding an inherently political position. Her activism and firmness in her beliefs were and still are admirable. But she would have better served them as a member of the Assembly rather than as its leader. The person who leads the group needs to be able to assuage various groups and forge compromises.
So far during this election campaign I have heard a lot of policy ideas from all three of the candidates. All three candidates have come up with a variety of quality policies, yet these policies should not be our main criterion of selection when we vote. Instead, we should focus on the ability of each of these candidates to lead an Assembly that will no doubt remain political to some degree.
Political shrewdness outweighs innovative policy making in a president for two main reasons. First, nearly any proposal advocated by the president will face some sort of opposition in the general body of the SA. Thus, if the new president does not succeed in creating some unity in the fractured group it is unimportant how well thought-out his new policy is because it will doomed to get bogged down in the politics.
The second reason stems from the very special role that the president, and only the president, can serve. The Assembly consists of a wide range of members who all have innovative ideas. They are just as capable as the president in formulating a policy and advocating it. However, only the president can build coalitions and forge compromises. Thus it is more important that the president serve this role than one of policy maker.
A few weeks ago a friend asked me what I thought were the main voting issues in this election. For me there is really only one. As much as people may not want to hear it, the candidate that will revive the Assembly is not the activist, he is the politician.
