During the special application period of candidacy filing for the University Collegiate Student Council Elections 2026, the five main electoral positions are composed of independent candidates with no contenders. The question now is no longer who should lead, but whether anyone is still willing to step forward.
The University Student Commission on Elections officially opened the floor for Certificate of Candidacy Filing from August 26 to September 7, later opening a special application period in hopes of political parties or independent candidates to file, vying for a seat in the vacant posts, but despite the special application only a single candidate chose to answer the clarion call for the UCSC Presidency. What was once a battle of collective leadership at Manuel S. Enverga University Foundation turned into a desperate call to fill the empty seats.
The decline in student political participation was already evident in last year’s elections where the competition was largely concentrated in the presidential race. This year, however, the problem has moved beyond limited competition and points to the weakening of students’ collective pursuit for leadership. This decline in student political participation is more than a bland ballot, it also reflects a student body who cares less about who gets to represent them.
Yet, the responsibility of sustaining student leadership should not be relied solely on the students themselves. The university’s primary role should be creating an environment where the culture of leadership and management thrives through proper support, recognition, and consideration given the demands placed upon those who lead. If the university expects students to take the initiative, it must also examine its own role in creating an environment where student leadership prevents being a burdensome, or even fearsome, responsibility. The willingness of students to step forward is important, but so is the institution’s responsibility to ensure that those who do are not left to carry the burden alone.
In turn, we should not mistake the willingness of the independent candidates who stepped forward as the end of the conversation, but rather the avenue for more questions. Every plan and platform served to us should be probed and challenged because this is the student body’s power to hold them accountable and to make sure that they are there not just for the sake of it, but to serve with purpose and intention. Student representation thrives with the student body being engaged enough to communicate what it needs to create a strong political culture that can be sustained for a long time. It does not end with the availability of the student leaders.
Elections are an exercise of choice. It is a chance for students to weigh the competitions between visions, platforms, and advocacies to decide who deserves their trust. But when that competition disappears, the ballot loses its purpose. We are left with a limited opportunity to question the kind of leadership we deserve. We risk a reality where our voices become mere whispers in administrative decisions, us being left to survive for ourselves, and us accepting to carry the burden alone.
Being a leader and choosing a leader is the collective effort of the whole student body. We must realize what kind of representation we deserve and ask ourselves if we are willing to become those voices. If we want better leaders, we must also become better participants of the process that produces it. The representation we deserve requires us, the student body, to participate, question, and challenge, not just a handful of people willing to step forward.
Leadership should never be a desperate search for names to fill a ballot, and more importantly, we should never settle for an election simply because there are names to complete the ballot. Because when we are left with no choice, we let democracy quiet down. If you see the empty seats, fill them—not for the position, but for every Envergan who deserves to be heard.
