Inside LASUSU: Deluxe Edition.

The growing culture of “leaders” and political structures.

On wednesday, the 20th of May, the 37th LASUSU Independent Electoral Committee (IEC), under the leadership of Hon. Gabriel Theresa, released the screening results for the Students’ Union Executive elections leading to quite a spectacle among student politicians and their fan bases, yet beneath all the growing noise, one development has quietly found its way into student conversations:

“Why is one of the most strategic offices in LASUSU going unopposed?”

While the Assistant General Secretary (AGS) position currently has four aspirants contesting for the office, the General Secretary position has only one visible aspirant: Kappo Olamilekan Sejoro.

This interesting and rather unusual development has lead many students to begin asking questions, not necessarily because the aspirant is perceived as unqualified, but because of what an uncontested emergence for such a powerful office appears to represent within the wider LASUSU political space.

In student politics, influential offices rarely lack competition, especially so for an office like that of the General Secretary.

A position central to communication, coordination, documentation, and the administrative operations of the union.

When an office of this magnitude appears politically settled before elections fully intensify, students begin to wonder whether the lack of opposition reflects ordinary political consensus or the growing influence of political structures within LASUSU.

The Rise of “Leader” and “Structures” Politics.

“My Leader.”

“Woman leader.”

These titles have become normalized within LASU’s political environment. Behind many aspirants today are political structures, former officeholders, faculty stakeholders, and influential figures capable of shaping conversations long before manifestos even reach students.

Mentorship itself is not the issue.

Every political system naturally produces experienced individuals who guide younger politicians and help them navigate leadership spaces.

However, concerns begin to emerge when political influence starts appearing stronger than political competition itself.

When endorsements begin carrying more weight than visibility among students and aspirants become increasingly dependent on established structures instead of direct political engagement, this becomes a growing cause for concern.

Kappo-Lekan’s visibility within LASUSU politics is also unsurprising to many students, given his familiarity within existing political structures on campus. Over the past weeks, conversations surrounding withdrawals and political alignments around the General Secretary race have only added further attention to discussions about this structure politics within the union.

Whether these perceptions are fully accurate or not, the conversations themselves reveal a growing concern among students about how influence operates within campus politics.

The Effect on Student Participation

One major consequence of this political culture is growing student disconnection from the electoral process itself.

When students begin feeling like certain offices are politically unreachable without alignment to existing structures, participation gradually weakens.

Not because students lack interest in governance, but because they begin to feel disconnected from the process, even before elections properly begin.

Over time, this can create political apathy, where students observe elections from a distance rather than actively engaging with them. And for a union built on representation, student participation remains one of the most important parts of any democratic process.

Because healthy student politics does not only depend on aspirants or political leaders. It also depends on students who are willing to:

• ask questions,

• engage with candidates,

• evaluate manifestos,

• and participate actively in elections.

The IEC and Questions Around Transparency

This conversation also connects with concerns that have continued to surface around the electoral process itself.

In the days leading to elections, questions surrounding IEC visibility, political neutrality, and student awareness have repeatedly emerged among students.

For a body expected to conduct elections independently, many students still believe stronger communication and transparency are necessary to build confidence in the process. And when core offices appear uncontested so early, those concerns naturally become amplified among politically conscious students.

At the center of all this is one important reality:

Students are no longer only observing who is contesting elections. They are also paying closer attention to the structures and political culture shaping the contests themselves.

The Bigger Conversation

This is not an attack on any aspirant or political figure.

Every candidate deserves to be assessed based on their ideas, conduct, plans, and capacity to serve students effectively.

However, as the 37th LASUSU elections approach, this moment also presents an opportunity for students to reflect on the kind of political culture they want to encourage within the union.

Ultimately, healthy democracies will only thrive when leadership is openly contested, transparently earned, and actively decided through participation from you, LASUites. The future of LASUSU politics must not only be shaped by aspirants or political structures, but also by students staying informed, participating, and taking genuine interest in the democratic process of their union.

📝: Jimoh Abdul-Lateef

Editor-in-Chief, LASU Life.

---