Back... and to the Left.

I once took a walk along the pier at the Berkeley Marina. The sea was choppy, the clouds lying ominously above me, and out along the horizon, the vague silhouette of a freighter could be seen against the crimson flare of the setting sun. Amidst it all, there was a seagull sitting on the right hand railing of the dock, eyeing me suspiciously. As I approached, he took off and flew further down the same railing, towards the heart of the bay. We exchanged this little back-and-forth the whole way down: every time I moved too close for comfort, he would fly further down the dock. We got near the end – by which time, mind you, I felt really bad for pushing the little idiot as far as he’d gone – and he ran out of dock to which he could flee. Not wanting to force him to think of an alternate course of action, I turned around and walked home.

I couldn’t help but think back on this when it was revealed in the Daily Cal last week (see the article here) that Senator John Moghtader, after much deliberation with his lawyer, was prepared to release a video taken on the balcony at Eshleman Hall on November 13 – one which purportedly negates the testimonies presented by first-hand “witnesses” Husam Zakharia and Dina Omar, among others. I liken those who falsified the evidence to the seagull, and myself (arrogantly enough) to the truth: you can try to run away from it, but if all works as it should, sooner or later, you’ll run out of dock.

The long-term repercussions of this new development are difficult to make out, particularly as very few have had access to the video itself. Still, its very existence certainly raises concerns about the recall, which was primarily based on the assumption that Moghtader had engaged in conduct unbefitting his role as an ASUC Senator by joining in the fight, as outlined in Dina Omar’s editorial. In recent days, the argument has been made that the results of the recall are not invalidated by the new tape, since Moghtader acted against student interest by withholding said evidence from the voting body. I, however, would answer that it would not have made any difference: if the actions of the District Attorney of Alameda County weren’t sufficient to convince students to vote on the recall, the outcome would seem to have been predetermined.

Don’t be fooled: this video is not important because it can undo the results of an unjust election. It presumably won’t do that, and even if it does, it’s pretty meaningless, because (a) the term is largely expired, (b) this year’s Senate can’t get anything done, and (c) the ASUC Senate is a worthless organization to begin with, as I’ve been writing all year. No, the video is important only because it will, based on what’s been revealed so far, prove that the dubious claims presented since November were, indeed, wholly falsified.

Ideally, it would be nice to see those whose dishonest claims saw the election presented to the disinterested populace in the first place face some personal repercussions, though presumably such will not be the case. Realistically, there are two things that should come out of this affair. First, it should lead to a serious reconsideration of the recall procedure on all fronts. The administration should recognize that the cost of a recall election is virtually unjustifiable, and that it needs to pressure the ASUC to amend its constitution accordingly. Student government should recognize that the proceedings have been far more divisive than the events that triggered them in the first place, and that the process was both far too easy to begin (those shady 1000 online signatures) and far too easy to finish (with just less than 2700 people deciding to remove the 7th highest vote getter). Finally, the students themselves should recognize that it’s apparently easy to waste a boatload of money to divest yourself of political enemies provided one is willing to intentionally distort the truth. Assuming another recall takes place before too long – which I’ve got to say, given how easy it is, it clearly ought to – students would be well-served to bear in mind the likelihood that testimony they’re presented with from anyone with something to gain from lying cannot necessarily be trusted.

Second, and even more important, students should recognize that the repercussions of this extend far beyond those who provided the fraudulent testimonies: those implicated in the email leak were as responsible for the spread of any lies as the students who provided them. I by no means intend to imply that the CalSERVE party is inherently ideologically opposed to Moghtader and all he stands for, but I posit that it can’t be a coincidence that the emails were all written by members of that group. It should also be noted that in the email written by CalSERVE Senator Kifah Shah, she did not express hope that Student Action Senators could be convinced of the legitimacy of their claims, but rather merely that they would “think of [Moghtader] as dispensible.” For a party that prides itself on “transparency,” CalSERVE’s practice feels uncomfortably more like a return to the rampant corruption of the United States’ Harding days. What’s emerged since November has been a political slate that has worked as a unit to overturn the democratic process they so insist they love in a transparent (oh, the devastating irony) attempt to remove the fly from their proverbial ointment. I refuse to waste money on a recall to remove the guilty parties from office. However, I sincerely hope that this political impropriety has not been lost on voters, and that when the April elections come up, they give a good, long thought as to whose interests CalSERVE really promises to defend – and to how much value transparency really has when you’re frightened by what you see inside.

I saw that same seagull again the last time I walked to the pier; once more, he took off down the dock. Remember, some people never learn.