Ballot and Broken Promises: How Student Elections Mirror National Politics on Campus
By Robiat Oladele
If national politics has taught us anything over the years, it is that elections are rarely just about leadership. They are about power, influence, patronage, and who controls resources. On campus, the same shadows loom. Student elections are not immune to the deeper pathologies of governance, they replicate them.
Campaign Culture: Flash Over Substance
The campaign cycle kicks off in spectacle. Flashy posters, WhatsApp bants, stickers and rallies dominate the scene. The louder the campaign, the higher the visibility. But how much of it is substance?
Many campaigns prioritize optics rather than concrete policies. A candidate may promise inclusivity but neglect the structural challenge of political apathy and a culture of silence. A tagline like “Voice for all students” rolls easily off lips, yet few ask how that will translate into regular consultation or feedback mechanisms.
This emphasis on image over ideology mirrors national politics, where branding and narrative often overshadow governance plans. The candidate who “looks like leadership” often wins, not necessarily the one with the most deliverable solutions.
Electoral Malpractice in Miniature
Money, manipulation, and interference seep into student elections just as they do national ones.On campuses, the power to mobilize financial backing becomes a de facto requirement. Posters, multimedia campaigns, refreshments they all cost. Candidates with access to funds or external backers gain an edge. But that edge corrodes fairness.
Why? Because few mechanisms exist to compel delivery. Student unions operate on goodwill, not binding contracts. When leaders fail, accountability is thin. Punitive structures are weak, and demands for explanations are seldom taken seriously. Only 5,484 out of 35,000 eligible students voted roughly 15%. The low turnout was partly blamed on disillusionment with past leaders who failed to meaningfully impact student life.
Broken promises breed cynicism. And when cynicism wins over hope, democracy loses ground.
Godfatherism & Backroom Power
Officially, student elections are contests among peers. But in reality, most candidates run on the backs of political godfathers. These “sponsors” offer funding, or influence behind the scenes. Godfatherism is the backbone of campus politics, where student leaders just want to go for post to satisfy their selfish interest and that of their god father, while neglecting the needs and silencing the voice of those they claim to represent. An aspirant will do anything to satisfy their even when it affects the student they represent.
When elections are backed by affiliation rather than merit, power is no longer earned. It is granted. This mirrors national politics where party and patronage networks fuel candidacies more than grassroots support.
Broken Promises & The Fade of Accountability
Promises once shouted from rallies often evaporate after inaugurations. The electricity remains spotty, hostel security remains lax, and union budgets remain opaque. These shadow players often expect returns: control of union contracts, influence over halls, or alignment with institutional priorities. The elected leader thus becomes a liaison, not a champion.
The Role of the Student Press
If the union is the body, the press is ideally the mind watching, recording, interrogating. But when everything is political, the press becomes both sword and target.
During the election period, campus journalists often cover campaigns, expose irregularities, and question leaders. But such work is risky. Press members face pressure, blackouts, or even physical intimidation.
When leaders expect loyalty, every critical article becomes a challenge. They may accuse the press of bias, label them as “opposition media,” or deny interview access. The press is under siege from those it was meant to hold accountable. For instance, an article published by AFAS press about the member of the current financial secretary of AFAS, who started campaigning before the election ban was lifted, which sparked a lot of controversy.
Voter Apathy & Misinformation
The yawning gap between campaign fervour and voter turnout is telling. Students abstain because they feel betrayed, unheard, or powerless. Add misinformation into the mix. Fake manifestos, last-minute propaganda, and false counter snippets sow confusion. Students find it easier to ignore politics than wade through noise. Many rationalize silence: "Why bother voting if nothing changes?” When youth apathy rises nationally, the campus reflects it starkly.
Between Hope and Disillusion
Union politics are now theatre fun speeches, loud rallies, hall slogans. But deep down, many wish for change. They want halls fixed, stipends distributed, academic policy input. They observe leaders vanish into offices, ignore complaints, and seem distant. The distance is not just physical; it is ideological. The student leader becomes an official first, folks-holder later.
Students disconnect entirely, focusing on graduation projects or internships. The union becomes less relevant. But the void they leave is not neutral; it is fertile ground for opportunism.
At the heart of these failures lies a broken system, one that students did not create, but now live with. The structure itself is flawed. Electoral commissions, meant to guarantee free and fair elections, are often toothless. Just like in many institutions, they operate under the watchful eyes of school management rather than as independent student-led bodies. As a result, irregularities happen. from rigging to disqualification without due process, there is no real accountability.
Worse still, violations carry little to no consequences. A candidate may incite violence or flout campaign rules, but the system shrugs. Promises made on podiums vanish after elections, and no one blinks. Union budgets? Rarely published. Financial decisions? Often made in silence. Students are left to guess how their dues are spent, or worse, stop caring altogether.
Adding to that is the glaring absence of civic education. Many students enter the university system without understanding how student governance works, or why it matters. They do not know their rights, the power of a union, or how to hold leaders accountable. The result is a disempowered student body, one that either disengages or gets manipulated.
These are not just administrative oversights; they are structural weaknesses that mirror the wider democratic decay in the country. Just as in national politics, flawed systems on campus do not just produce bad outcomes, they produce bad habits.
The mirror effect: what student learn
Student politics is not just about school, it is where many young people get their first taste of leadership and democracy. But when what they see is vote buying, favoritism, and empty promises, they begin to believe that this is how leadership works. Elections start to feel like a game of “what can I get?” instead of “how can I serve?” By the time they leave school, many carry that mindset into the real world. They stop expecting transparency or accountability, and they get used to accepting poor governance. What starts as a student election becomes a training ground for the same broken politics we complain about in the country.
Conclusion: The Campus as Democracy’s Mirror
The ballot is not neutral; it reflects what we believe about power. Broken promises on campus can quietly brew cynicism in minds that one day will shape nations. But student elections should be more than replicas of national decay they can be experiments in accountability, vision, and integrity. The challenge is steep, but the stakes are higher: the next generation’s moral compass might begin right in the student union.
.png)