Politics: 4 OUT OF 9; A STORY OF EMPTY SEATS AND SILENT CHOICES AMONG NAPSITES

By Anoffering

The microphone screeched softly as it was adjusted.

“Good evening, NAPSITES…”

The voice echoed into a hall that should have been alive, but wasn’t.

A few scattered conversations lingered at the back. Some students sat with divided attention, eyes drifting between their phones and the podium. Others never showed up at all. The seats, neatly arranged, stretched out in quiet accusation, rows of empty spaces where voices should have been.

It was Manifesto Night.

A night meant for questions, for scrutiny, for vision, for choice, but something was missing. For some positions, there was no debate to anticipate, no opposing ideas to weigh, just a single candidate, stepping forward, speaking, and stepping down. Unchallenged, unquestioned, unopposed.

By the time the lights dimmed and the hall emptied, what should have been a contest of ideas had become a mere formality.

And the numbers told the story plainly:

Four out of nine?

Only four executive positions filled. Three out of the four, unopposed.

At what point did this become normal?

Because this is not just about numbers. It is about silence, the kind that comes from indifference. The kind that grows quietly, comfortably, until it begins to define an entire system. Somewhere along the line, participation became optional, and leadership became something “others” would handle. But leadership does not wait when people do not step forward, the system does not freeze, it adapts. Responsibilities are picked up, decisions are made, and positions are filled, not necessarily by the most capable, but by the most available.

And then, almost predictably, something else happens. The same silence that filled the hall begins to find its voice, in side conversations, in criticisms, in subtle dissatisfaction with what is or isn’t working.

But where were these voices when it mattered? Where were the questions when candidates stood alone at the podium?Where was the scrutiny when manifestos were presented? It is easy to critique a structure you did not help build, but it is harder to admit that your absence helped shape it.

So we must ask ourselves, honestly;

Why are NAPSITES reluctant to step forward? Is it the fear of losing? Or of standing before peers and not being chosen? Is it the discomfort of visibility, the weight of being seen, known, and judged?

Is it the scrutiny that comes with campaigning, with promises, with accountability? Why do we wait for Bye elections before stepping out? Why do manifesto and press nights feel like obligations rather than opportunities? Why do we disengage from the very processes that determine the quality of our collective experience? These are questions that needs to be asked.

This is a call to every NAPSITES to

desist from the path of apathy. NAPSITES must begin to see political participation not as a burden, but as influence, not as risk, but as responsibility.

If competent people continue to sit back, competence will never lead, and if thoughtful voices remain silent, noise will take their place.