When Leadership Finds Few Takers: Agronomy's Succession Question

 

As the Agronomy Club, University of Ibadan, which brings together students from the Department of Crop and Horticultural Sciences and the Department of Soil Resources Management, approaches another leadership transition, an unsettling question emerges: who is willing to take responsibility for the future of the Club?

With the election process already underway and Screening, Manifesto Night and Press Night scheduled for this week, only four aspirants have so far declared their intentions to contest for executive positions. Of these, two are seeking the office of Vice President, while one aspirant each has emerged for the offices of President and Assistant General Secretary. For the remaining positions, there are currently no known aspirants.

The limited number of declared aspirants raises concerns that extend beyond the number of nomination forms purchased. It brings into focus a growing question of participation and the willingness of members to take up leadership responsibilities within the Club.

Political apathy is not entirely unfamiliar within the Agronomy community. However, the situation surrounding this election appears particularly concerning. Despite the considerable period provided for the purchase of nomination forms, including an extension of the deadline, only three of the 10 available executive positions have attracted declared aspirants. Four individuals have expressed interest across these positions, leaving seven positions without any known aspirants as the election process advances. While low participation may not be an entirely new concern, the present situation raises questions about whether interest in the Club's leadership is diminishing and what this could mean for its future.

Beyond the immediate concern about the number of aspirants, the strength of a student organisation cannot be measured solely by the activities of its executives or the frequency of its programmes. It is also reflected in the willingness of its members to participate in its affairs, contribute to its direction and offer themselves for service. When positions that require representation and responsibility attract little interest, it becomes necessary to examine the factors behind such reluctance.

Is it a question of disinterest, a lack of confidence in the leadership process, the demands associated with holding office, or a gradual disconnect between members and the Club? Whatever the reasons may be, they deserve attention rather than assumptions. It would be insufficient to simply describe the situation as apathy without examining what may be contributing to it.

More concerning is the question of succession. Leadership transition should not become an afterthought that receives attention only when an administration is approaching the end of its tenure. Preparing members for leadership, encouraging participation and creating an environment where people are willing to serve should form part of the broader responsibilities of an administration.

The outgoing executives, therefore, have a role to play in this conversation. Beyond completing their respective tenures, what structures have been put in place to encourage continuity? How much engagement has taken place to inspire members to become involved in the Club's leadership? These are legitimate questions, particularly when the Club is approaching an election with several positions yet to attract declared aspirants.

At the same time, the responsibility cannot rest solely on the outgoing executives. Members must also recognise that the Club belongs to them. It is easy to criticise an administration, question its decisions and demand better representation, but leadership requires more than criticism from the sidelines. It requires a willingness to participate, contribute ideas and accept responsibility when the opportunity arises.

There is also the recurring expectation that unoccupied positions may eventually attract aspirants through by-elections. While this may have become a familiar feature of the Club's electoral process, it raises another concern: can the Club continue to rely on a subsequent electoral process to fill positions that have attracted little interest during the main election? More importantly, what happens if the anticipated interest does not materialise even then? The possibility of a by-election should not become an excuse for postponing participation or avoiding the responsibilities that come with the main electoral process.

Ultimately, the concern is bigger than the forthcoming election. It is about the kind of leadership culture Agronomy is building and whether the Club is creating an environment that encourages members to see leadership as a responsibility worth undertaking.

An administration will eventually hand over, executives will leave their positions, and another set of leaders will emerge. But what happens when the transition arrives and there are too few people willing to take the responsibility forward?

Agronomy must begin to look beyond the immediate election and confront the questions surrounding member participation, leadership engagement and succession. Because the future of the Club cannot depend indefinitely on the willingness of a few individuals to serve. It must also depend on a membership that recognises its stake in the organisation and is prepared to contribute to its continuity.