Constitutional Amendment Bill: The faulty arguments of AFAS Honourables

One of the many reasons that makes any intellectual different from an uneducated person is his ability to reason with less faults but with logic. The word rationale does not necessarily mean that a thinking is rational but that a thought is subjective and only rational to the thinker. How we see it does not matter but truly, some rationales are irrational. This, overtime, has been a distinguishing factor in knowing an intelligent person over a non intelligent one. Classical philosophers at the advent of the sophists thrived on this, politically inclined individual, also, must possess this quality of logical reasoning for them to stand out, for indeed, they must stand out. Where then stands the AFAS Legislative council in the world of logical reasoning and intellectual argument?
In the last Afas Plenary session, the constitution amendment bill sponsored by Hon. Olasoji of Linguistics constitution witnessed its first reading. During the reading, the floor was opened for Honourables to ask questions and deliberate on the bill. In this piece, this writer weighs the deliberation of the hallowed chamber and checks the reasoning ability of our dearest honourables.

The bill for an act to amend fund and disbursement

On many occasions, as has been repeatedly shown by past events, the need to revisit the constitutionally entrenched fund of disbursing #10,000 as the limit of unapproved transaction after the swearing in of the new executive council before approval of budget by FLC has always surfaced. It was, in fact, another bone of contention during the beginning of the semester after the new administration also exceeded, by a country mile, the amount of #10,000 as provided by the constitution.

What does the bill state? That the naira-dollar exchange rate is not the same as it was in 2014 when the constitution was last reviewed. That the purchasing rate of the previous years is not the same as now. With this factor, according the bill’s sponsor, it is only logical that the amount to be provided by the constitution be up to #30,000.

What were the arguments against this? One of the arguments that really caught this writer’s attention was the obvious fact that no matter what the amount is set at, the executive council would still expend more than the amount provided by the constitution.
This means two things: the legislators are sure that the executives are well and proud rule breakers who really have no regard for the power of the house that protects the constitution, and that the FLC has lost its power to deal with erring members of the executive council regarding what and what not the constitution states. This goes to show how faulty the argument is, since the FLC, not minding the spendthrift nature of the executive, should do what might be considered right, and if the executives break the law provided in the constitution they take measures to make sure that this does not go unpunished. Instead of thinking about measures to ensure that this law is not broken, honourables cower and nag on the notion that whatever the amount is set at, it would be over expended.

The bill of election guidelines

The main reason that birthed the idea behind this bill is the fact that we are indeed in a digital world. Last session, the faculty employed the electronic voting system. These factors necessitated the need to amend the constitution, since by law, the voting system that was used last session would be considered illegal.
What does the bill state? That we are in a digital world and that the constitution still provides for open secret ballot boxes voting system, thus outdated. That the electoral committee members, candidate’s agents, the press, and the faculty management be present when the results are checked.

What are the arguments against this? Two arguments caught this writer’s attention. First, that the electronic voting system can be hacked and the second, that the faculty management should not be present.
Although it is disturbing that the first thing that comes to the minds of our noblest honourables when posed with a new innovation (that is not even new) is rejection based on hacking. Rather, The genuine concern should be how we would even know if it were indeed hacked? On what ground can we say it will be hacked? Even if the concern would be on hacking, shouldn’t the real question be how to prevent hacking and not reject the bill on basis that the system can be hacked? Shouldn’t we strive to find solutions to any fault that might arise from an innovation rather than reject it on the grounds of the faults that might come with it? Furthermore, many honourables seem ignorant of the difference between online voting system and offline voting system. The proposal from the electoral committee is an offline one, and even the system used last session was equally offline. This simply means that the system is built such like a calculator to calculate the amount of votes a candidate gets. It is not necessarily hosted on a domain nor a web space. This system would also mean that election would still be an open secret ballot system just that the tedium of votes counting is eliminated. The real questions the honourables should ask is that if the electronic system would still mean that Afasites have to come to the faculty, then isn’t the system just an expensive paper voting system in disguise? The other argument that caught attention was that faculty management should not be present. As has been said in the beginning of this piece, not all rationales are rational. The reason for any faculty officer’s presence is not to influence but to simply observe. This doesn’t seem to strike a chord in the honourable that suggested that the management be absent since it is student affairs. In all fairness, it doesn’t really hurt for them to observe the proceedings or not observe but they are there so to ensure that it is fair and sanity is maintained at all time.

This writer fails to understand the grounds with which our faculty honourables reason any matter that is presented in the hallowed chamber. Indeed, if these honourables are representatives of Afasites, then they should be able to reason at the highest level, but if they are lacking in this department, then there surely is a big problem at hand. The solution, we would keep on saying, is for our dearest honorable to think very well on any matter tabled before them, for truly, their rationales must always be rational at all times.