“To expedite the ballot counting process, we ask that you either write ‘Yes’ or ‘Abstain’ on your piece of paper,” Leah from the Election Commission announced. The fifty or so students crowded around the pumpkin spice cannoli’s from Mike’s Pastry stopped discussing President Obama’s stance on immigration for a brief moment to cast their votes for the next President and Vice President of the Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government.
“People can abstain?” Niyat’s face fell. The lone Vice Presidential Candidate, Niyat Mulugheta, was clearly not expecting opposition to emerge from the populous she aspired to represent.
“It’s not like you were going to win unanimously!” Leah exclaimed.
The friendly banter underscores a larger phenomena that typified the 2014 IOP Executive Elections. Niyat, along with her running mate and Presidential candidate, Colin Diersing, ran unopposed. Similarly, Kim Soffen was alone in running for Treasurer. Only the position of Communications Director was contested, with Jenny Gao and Chris Farley both vying.
Two possible causes for the single competitive race come to mind: 1) Active IOP members who were themselves eligible to run perceived that Colin, Niyat and Kim were best suited for their respective roles and consequently did not feel it necessary to challenge them as contenders. 2) Active IOP members who were themselves eligible to run did not want to run for reasons other than their own and others’ capability.
Having worked with Colin, Niyat, and Kim through various IOP Programs, I do not doubt that the first reason is valid. Colin is my IOP ‘Big Buddy’ and arguably the most qualified person to represent, given that he has been a member of nearly all of the IOP’s fifteen programs. Niyat’s bipartisanship and genuine love of listening to suggestions makes her a remarkable leader. Kim’s gift for data analysis makes her uniquely-positioned to integrate STEM into IOP events.
But it’s the viability of the second option that worries me.
In lieu of Jenny Choi’s article in the Harvard Political Review, “Dear IOP”, I’m beginning to wonder if there is a culturally perpetuated horse-race mentality that leads veteran IOP members to become jaded. Choi observes, “It’s sometimes hard to watch these all-too-intense student elections without a suspicion of insincerity. A certain sense of disillusionment has resigned us all to the belief that the wheel will only continue rolling the same way it has been, just to bring the same issues back to the table come next year.” Insincerity. Disillusionment. A rolling wheel. As the bastion of Harvard’s political discourse and the breeding ground for the nation’s future leaders (former IOP member Elise Stefanik became the youngest woman in Congress at the age of 30 after winning the race in New York’s upstate 21st District this past midterm election), the IOP is responsible for cultivating a certain definition of politics. Are the five words above embodied in this definition?
Uncontested elections within the IOP, while understandable with phenomenal candidates, may insidiously imply that IOP members are too cynical and suspicious to run the very institution that imbued those sentiments in the first place. It also makes it difficult for voters to serve as a form of checks and balances on the definition of politics that we want to see upheld. Having an all-encompassing discussion about this definition is difficult if only a few people are leading it, if ideas are not challenged and questioned. During the course of their campaign, Colin, Niyat and Kim took time to meet with IOP members and hear our thoughts on how to improve the institution: how to meaningfully collaborate with campus activists to acknowledge social justice’s position as a political issue. This is commendable. But what if other uncontested candidates had not taken the same initiative? Accountability is undermined through uncontested elections.
I write this out of love for the IOP and what it has offered me thus far in my Harvard experience. As a freshman passionate about service and policy, the IOP has become my safe haven, my second home. I am in room L166 at the Kennedy School more than I am in my own dorm. Through the IOP, I have been able to take a selfie with Joe Biden and attend a tea party with his sister. But, as I listen to former Egyptian Vice President, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, lecture on war and peace according to Robert McNamara, I find myself forgetting that politics is more than just rubbing shoulders with heads of state in the J.F.K. Forum. I worry that the dearth of competitive races in IOP student elections is linked to an insular definition of politics.
As the fall semester winds to a close and we IOPeople analyze the implications of President Obama’s use of executive action for immigration policy over turkey and pecan pie, I look forward to revolutionizing IOPolitics during the next year. And hopefully, one mechanism through which this revolution occurs is competitive elections.