As the posters go up, we are once again presented with a familiar set of assurances. The candidates promise affordable student accommodation, a better campus life, and a new focus on commuter issues. We, as students, roll our eyes at the posters, help ourselves to the free cookies, maybe vote, and then spend the rest of the year complaining that nothing has changed.
We blame the Students Union and the candidates, yet we rarely blame ourselves.
The truth is simple but uncomfortable: the candidates get away with making these vague pledges because we let them.
Housing stands as a clear example. Each candidate makes a point to mention affordable student accommodation. This is followed by key buzzwords like “advocate” and “lobby”. Candidates will continue to push DCU to build more accommodation.
What we rarely see mentioned is the most critical part of the debate: the question of how.
How will they make it a priority? What is the timeline? How will they fund their promises?
These questions are rarely asked or even more rarely pursued. We let candidates make sweeping statements while never taking time to ask the important questions.
Moving then to tackle the age-old issue of DCU’s St. Patrick’s campus. Year after year, candidates proclaim that they alone will organise more events, along with an increased SU presence on their sister campus. The solution sounds simple, doesn’t it?
But it dodges the real issue.
The problem is not a lack of events but rather a lack of infrastructure to match the engagement levels seen on the Glasnevin campus. No amount of free ice cream or a strong SU presence will resolve that issue. You cannot event plan your way out of an infrastructural issue.
Making infrastructure a key issue of your campaign isn’t exactly exciting. It requires a detailed lobbying plan and budget awareness. So instead, we get shallow promises, and again, we accept them.
As the saying goes, “Decisions are made by those who show up.” We do show up, but only briefly to listen to what they have to say. We do not question what they say. A disengaged electorate will produce frivolous campaigns.
These elections should be rigorous, allowing the candidates to flesh out their ideas in full. Instead, they function as a brand launch where visibility beats hard work. If you want better from the SU, you cannot be easily persuaded. Make sure you ask the second question and then the third. Ask what happens if it fails.
Until we demand better from ourselves, the manifestos for the 2027 SU elections will continue to be written, and they will all sound very familiar.
*The views expressed in this opinion piece belongs to the individual author/writer and does not represent the views of the newspaper as a whole*
