The Slit Skirt: LAUMSA’s politics and its scaffolding

The allegory of a slit skirt is astutely fitting for the current state of LAUMSA politics. It apparently presents itself as formal, structured and modest, yet it exposes vulnerabilities, ambitions, and raw power dynamics more than it conceals. 

We have emerged with two champions— Oluwadolapo Poopola (TOP) and Abdulgafar Adeyanju (Accelerated Growth). Two men, with seemingly similar philosophies, who have found a way to antagonise each other. In fact, a few days ago, their supporters had a ridiculous argument on whether LAUMSA is already at the “TOP” and if there should be room for growth, if so. They, the supporters, do not even have semantic boundaries for the definition of “Growth” or “TOP”. They just want to be against each other while saying the same thing.

This phenomenon will make any thinker wonder, “What exactly am I voting for?” And my favourite answer to that is, “A name.” Sadly, it’s not more than that. And I will spend the rest of this article trying to prove that and discoursing why it is grossly inadequate. 

Most of LAUMSA contestants have reduced themselves to two pseudo-political parties, bonded by what? Not an ideology, it seems, but by the champion they believe is most likely to win. Or, in some cases, who they hate less. This ultimately speaks to the unreliability of these alliances and their members. LAUMSA’s options are not allied because they have a common path towards “Growth” or to the “TOP”. But because they believe it is the most favourable path to their position. It would be wise to assume that the champions and the godfathers of these “alliances” know this and will consequently ask for concessions. 

The consequent godfatherism and power dynamics from this process will stifle dissent. LAUMSA’s politicians will functionally become sycophants. Especially those in the preclinicals. They will have their tongues bridled with loyalty and do their electors a great disservice. You only need to look at the last tenure.

Observe how dissent was domesticated whenever it wasn’t intentionally manufactured to discredit someone “across the aisle”. Individuals who once spoke with surety suddenly discovered the virtue of strategic quietness. The skirt revealed the scaffolding beneath it: patronage, indebted loyalty, and transactional alignment. 

This is what happens when mimicry outpaces ethical formation. 

LAUMSA has perfected the aesthetics of governance. There are campaign graphics. There are electoral guidelines. There is the theatre of democracy. But aesthetics are not ethics. A constitution cannot manufacture character, as the last tenure clearly taught us. A manifesto cannot substitute for ideology. This system cannot withstand scrutiny because it is improvised in principle. It was built to simulate legitimacy, not embody it. And so alliances form not around ideas, but around anticipated victory. Not around shared convictions, but shared calculations. This is not politics; it is positioning.

Democracy is a culture of responsibility. It requires citizens who understand policy distinctions, who can interrogate language, and who can differentiate between branding and blueprint. When voters cannot define “Growth” or “TOP,” then those terms become infinitely malleable slogans rather than visions. They can mean everything and therefore nothing. Above all, it is the responsibility of our champions to explain what they mean: Which TOP? Which Accelerated Growth? Where? How? When? 

In our current system, loyalty tramples truth. Critique becomes betrayal. Silence becomes strategy. The elected office-holder begins to protect the position rather than pursue LAUMSA’s purpose. The fabric of structure is long and elaborate, but the integrity of practice is short. 

And the actual tragedy is: LAUMSA is intellectually capable of better. We are medical students; we do not treat pathology with branding. 

The question, therefore, is not whether TOP or Accelerated Growth is preferable. The deeper inquiry is this: what ideological distinction exists between them? What policy divergence? What administrative philosophy? What governance framework? If these cannot be clearly articulated, then the election is not about direction. It is about identity. We must quickly grow beyond this political adolescence. LAUMSAITES need clarity. We must stop rewarding lazy, unthoughtful politics. We must stop rewarding branding and proximity to power. Especially before godfatherism and opportunistic alliances calcify.