John Taiwo and Praise Olorunfemi.

“In framing a government, which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty is this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”—James Madison

Having reviewed the office of the Financial Secretary and the Public Relations Officer, and in further quest for the accountability of all office holders in the department, the press presents this publication in the form of a review to assess the office of the Social Director previously held by Hamzat Yetunde. The focus of this review is to assess effectiveness in fulfilling campaign promises.

The Manifesto presented by the Social Director on the occasion of the Press Night, which was held before the election during the last session borders on three main goals namely inclusive decision-making, inclusive event planning, and mentorship programme.

On inclusivity, as it relates to both decision-making and event planning, the Social Director promised “to ensure that information is readily available, and decisions are made clearly and inclusively” and “to empower them (members) to actively engage in shaping the direction and initiatives of NASELS.” Construing a firm belief that every member of our association needs to be heard, She “pledged to consider diverse perspectives and preferences, striving to organize events that cater to (sic) the interests of all NASELSites.”

Although the former Social Director made efforts concerning her manifesto and the constitution on “be(ing) responsible for matters relating to the general welfare of all members… of NASELS UI other than academic welfare” as spelt out in Section 8, Article IV of NASELS constitution, there is still left huge gaps to be closed when it comes completely achieving what she promised to deliver in her manifesto. In the course of the session, she has been able to see to the fruition of certain social events such as the “Retro Day”, and the “Movie Night”.

Now, having interviewed the former Social Director, Hamzat Yetunde, concerning her manifesto and constitutional duties, starting with the vision of “inclusivity” as she emphasised in her manifesto prompts the question of, if the opinions of NASELSites sampled before events were organised. To this, she was able to respond with how she indeed was able to include NASELSites in planning events for the association. She was able to point to having representatives from the 100 level to the 300 level. However, from the names she was able to mention, it seems as though she made more contact with the 300-level students, which is a no-brainer, as she is also a 300-level student. Having noticed the seeming notion of leaving out the 400-level students, the former Social Director reacted to this, saying that “the excos are representing them”. Further, in her explanation, it seems as if she allowed her “Africanism based on regards to elders” to take the better of her, as she seemed reluctant to include them to the committee. Nevertheless, she explained how “some of the executives, the president, represents the 400-level students. She also contributes to whatever we decide, aside the fact that she is an exco, she is first a student. So I will say that she represents the 400-level students, and I also have Tehilah, the vice president, she is also part of the committee and she is a 400-level student, so I will say she also represents the voices or opinions of the 400-level students”.

Furthermore, the former Social Director responded to how she thinks these events have catered for every NASELSite’s interest as she expected. She explained what the press can refer to as appealing to the critical mass that makes up the NASELS association, in her words “So far, it has been good, most of the events that I have organised, most of them (that is, NASELSites) are interested because we had a big turn-out and turn-up for the events. Firstly, on our “Retro Day” a lot of people participated, even more than I imagined, and also we had our “Movie Night”, a lot of people came around for it, and it was really interesting, so I would say that it catered for every NASLESites”. She also explained that one might not be able to cater for everybody when it comes to satisfying everyone in the department, and the former Social Director, believes as long as she can meet the satisfaction of this critical mass of NASELSites, that’s all that matters, as she stresses that “you might not be able to satisfy everybody, but since we can satisfy majority, I think majority is what matters…”. Hence, she believes that having reached a majority of NASELSites, as far as satisfaction is concerned, is as good as satisfying the whole NASELSites.

Another stressed point in her manifesto is that of “acknowledging the significance of mentorship in fostering the development of future NASELSites.” Consequentially to this, the former Social Director “proposed the implementation of a mentorship program that connects experienced members with newcomers (in this case referring to freshers) and students.” In the brilliance of the proposed programme, she ascertained that through this programme, “we can facilitate the long-term success and vitality of our association.”.

Now, concerning the mentorship programme that she stressed in her manifesto, which aim is to connect “freshers” and “staylites” for academic purposes, she was asked if indeed there was a mentorship programme. To this, the former Social Director gave the response that, “It was not feasible because we came in late; the 100-level students were already in school and it was not possible again for me to bring out.”. A question that jumps to one’s face is this, a mentorship programme is not an “instant noodles” kind of affair, coupled with the fact that she stressed the point to “…facilitate the long-term success and vitality of our association.”. What does the former Social Director refer to as “…we came in late…”? If she referred to the lateness in resumption, at most returning students resumed between the third and fourth week of last semester, or if she referred to the fact that they were elected in the first semester of this session rather than the last session. Nevertheless, that should not be a reason to ditch the whole mentorship plan that would have run for at least more than 26 weeks, and a possibility of running even beyond this period, as stressed in the statement, “We can facilitate the long-term success and vitality of our association.” An undisputed fact is that the former social director submitted her manifesto this session, got engaged in the electioneering this session and emerged victorious this session, as well.

Furthermore, when she was asked about “creating platforms for professional, academic, intellectual, and personal development for NASELSites to showcase their talents” as her manifesto boasted, she responded that “a programme will be coming up in NASELS week, where we will have two or three speakers talk to NASELSites about one of the things, so we have it planned”. As wonderful as this sounds, it does not pass without further questions arising, which shall be collectively examined shortly with other matters or questions arising.

So, picking it from where the former Social Director gave an excuse for not holding the mentorship programme. The former Social Director is no doubt familiar with the dynamics of resumptions and the normal traditions in the department. Hence, the importance of the constitutional stipulation that contestants for the office of the Social Director must have spent nothing less than three semesters in the department. The former Social Director, having met this criterion, ought to have been better informed of this situation. Therefore she should have taken cognisance of the possible occurrence of this variation in resumption for freshers and stallites, and effort should have been made to mitigate the challenge. For this kind of thing, she could have designed strategies that would have helped her track the newly admitted students of the association via social media, or whatever means she dims fit, engaging them, and initiating connections as the proposed mentorship programme. With this, she might have been able to curb the likelihood of two weeks’ lateness sufficing in hindering seemingly brilliant initiatives such as a session-long mentorship programme. Given that on average, there are 13 weeks in a semester and 26 in a session, the examination period is not inclusive. Now this proposed mentorship programme which would have lasted for 24 weeks, has been crushed at its budding stage due to an excuse of 2 weeks of early resumption of freshers, who are the main target of the programme, which would have still gone a long way in helping the freshers.

Nevertheless, the former Social Director mentioned that there is a new plan on the ground for incorporating the mentorship programme in the forthcoming NASELS week. This particular mentorship programme, according to her, would fill in for the earlier proposed mentorship programme. The question remains, being the former Social Director, does it mean she only resigned on paper but still carries out her duties as the Social Director of the association?

In all, examining the representation stressed in the former Social Director’s manifesto, the association needs to incorporate a form of inclusivity largely underlain by popular opinion and choice rather than by affinity, with the Social Director. After all, there is a reason why it is referred to as the office of the Social Director, and there must have been a reason why she opted for the office of a Social Director being a public office. It is not to keep to herself amongst all the other things expected of her. It is worthy of note here that “representative” in the context of the former Social Director’s manifesto captures both an all-levels-inclusive planning committee and one composed of individuals selected based on the popular choice of students across all levels, without shying away from a particular level. Although the constitution does not make provision for an all-level-inclusive-and-representative committee in matters that relate to the planning of events, this conclusion is inferable judging against the backdrop of what is obtainable in the former Social Director’s manifesto. Hence, the gimmick of hiding behind executives in the 400 level instead of socialising with them is like a child hiding behind a tiny pole, it will do very little to suffice. In the quest for an association characterised by inclusivity and growth, the contributions of all NASELSites are key. We can become the NASELS that we envisage.