THE BEAUTY AND THE BEAST OF THE 19TH SGC

They may pride themselves on their popularity and immense following from the student’s community, but the students governing council (SGC) has a negative side-and it showed during the interviews for the Editor-in-Chief.

It was their first big stage to test their mettle and integrity; choosing a competent and proven individual to be in-charge of dissemination of information to the Chepkoilel University College fraternity. And while the opening act may have been dreary, the finale was sublime. Amid the drama, Mary* stole the show with a ‘thrilling encore’ and was rewarded for her majestic presentation. But there was plenty of theatre too from the interviewers.

As the curtain drew back for the third installment of this epic-three part series, the cast lined up-9 against 11: the applicants vs. the SGC. There was tragedy and comedy; there were heroes and villains; there was drama and even horror. But above all there was plenty of acting.

The chairman was the hero, rescuing a poor script with a stunning late cameo which included subjecting applicants to voting by the SGC-which would have made a fitting finale to any blockbuster. After tying the two final contestants were subjected to biased secret ballot voting, why call a mockery interview exercise when you can sit among yourselves and do a secret ballot to choose the Editor-in-Chief. The credits followed, all for the Chairman, a box office hit.

But earlier, there had been villains too, those were the applicants. Dressed in crisp suits, clutching certificates folder, their piercing glares and evil stares among each other looked the part. They were the perfect baddies. Or were they? Opinions may differ as to whether the applicants were qualified or not, but either way meritocracy was thrown to the dungeons .The gallery (read students community) had been fooled. The supporting cast made up of the chairman, and the SGC theatrically disagreed on the best candidate and each showed signs of discontent with each other, but were in character 2minutes later after the voting. Chatting and congratulating each other for the ‘professionalism and sobriety’ practiced during the interview.

Only in movies can such miraculous reconciliations be witnessed-or on stage. In earlier scenes, the secretary general had led the entire team in asking the applicants ‘questions’ (read non-related to editorial exposure nor work).this was interview-acting of the highest order, but of the lowest level; amateur dramatics. Thespians perhaps; artistry, this was not.

Cheating in theatrical terms is the practice of turning one’s body towards the audience, even while keeping the head facing one’s scene partner. This may be their favorite or most well known part, and they may not be the best exponents of the genre, but the SGC has played this role before.

The SGCs act is hypocritical too. They preach transparency and accountability; they claim to pontificate over the student community and to provide equal opportunities to all their members irrespective of gender, skin color, racial background or wealth status. But only is parental guidance needed, often the action is x-rated material. And while their performances may be easy on the eye and worthy of praise, they can also leave a sour aftertaste.