The past days we had the elections of the next President of AIESEC International and in an exercise of democracy the MCP's of each country elected the person who will lead the next generation to reach the 2015 goals and we should be proud of it, yay! :)
But this is not why I am writing this. I am writing this because something caught my attention that is concerning to the people of AIESEC Mexico.
Between the candidates there was a Mexican candidate that was the MCP of Mexico Last year, he and his team lead us to a successful growth
in the entity, like +/- 70% Growth, and is one of the most remarkable members that AIESEC Mexico has ever seen in years.
He was also the one that changed the mindset of my LC, AIESEC in ITAM, and also he has given his best years in pro of the people of the organization to make a change in the mindset of
all of us to have a better country. Personally he did it for me, I remember his speeches during conferences and a lot of the things he said are the ones that I have been using and I'm using to support my personal and professional carrier, this phrase...
But well coming back to the election process, he was between the candidates, after the selection process he was not elected. The network decided that he was not the one they wanted to be President of AIESEC International. But also in the result we could see that Mexico didn't vote for him...
For me it's hard to understand how Mexico didn't vote for him knowing what he represented for us and it was the moment to give a clear message.
There can be a lot of reasons behind that he was not the strongest candidate, that it was not the best in the selection process and the others where better but that is part of the election process but there is a fact that is there and I believe that we had to vote for a country because a generation is being represented not vote because is the best for one or two.
It is a great responsibility being there and that should not be taken lightly at the moment of show a preference.
At the end the candidate that Mexico decided to vote wasn't chosen, the vote we gave was not useful because the result was clear for the winner but we also gave a message...
- Mexico didn't vote for his P.A.I candidate in years
- Mexico vote based in personal reasons and based on an interest of a position in the next A.I. team and not if it was the best for the organization.
Maybe I am wrong, my ideas are 20th century ones and I am always open to discussion, but I feel as a Mexican, as an AIESEC Member and personally I was really excited we had a PAI candidate.
Is like going to the FIFA World cup and see your country playing but support the other team because he has a better futbol and it is completely valid but at the end there is something there that is not fitting at all.
To conclude, I perceive that AIESEC in Mexico is making decisions based in other values and is not thinking in the people that are representing to make decisions.
I wish this can be fixed to give the next generations this feeling that I had when I joined the organization nearly five years ago and I really wish to see another Mexican saying "Do it for the Children..."
Luis O
I think the decision of AIESEC Mexico not voting for him says a lot about professionalism. A concious vote is voting for the best option in spite of feelings or friendships. Voting - knowingly - not for the best fit is not coherent with several of the AIESEC values, specially Striving for Excellence. That's just another point of view.
ResponderBorrarGreetings from AIESEC Peru!
My friend I'm also Mexican, I also had a term in another country's MC and I'm not going to tell you who I think should've won, I'm here to tell you that there is a blindfolding fog in your words. Trust is a mother value. You trust that your German MCP voted for the best candidate aiming at choosing the best individual on behalf of the entire country, just like the members of AIESEC in Mexico trust that their MCP made the wisest decision, knowing he represents them. Trust exist because they were chosen, also, through a democratic election process.
ResponderBorrarYou say that Mexico should have voted for the Mexican candidate because of the generation he represents. Allow me to say that every country could say the same thing about they're candidate, which nullifies that criteria.
Let me give you an example of how that mindset can cause damage to an AIESEC country, that mindset when people are influenced more by representations than by the qualities of a candidate or the values of our organisation.
As you're most likely aware of, Ukraine has very painful identity crisis: The east vs the west. AIESEC is not an exception to this conflict, and every time elections are held where there are candidates to MCP from both regions of the country, there is always an evident but unspoken feeling of "is MY candidate going to win?" and so on, members from the east won't hesitate in supporting their candidate, as members from the west cheer for their candidate.
It's hard to measure the costs of this conflict, but a slight sense of inadequacy found in "the other region's candidate" begins to be perceived from the very start, even before the candidates get a chance to present their ideas and plans in front of the national plenary for AIESEC in Ukraine.
Fortunately, AIESEC in Mexico doesn't suffer these kind of problems, nor does the global network of AIESEC. We can have a Peruvian, Portuguese, Costa Rican, Chinese, Ukrainian or Indian PAI without problems because the values we share are above our own countries' pride.
Should Mexico have voted for the Mexican candidate applying to PAI? I don't know, I didn't hear the speeches. But what I do know is that a vote is never DESERVED, but rather EARNED, and if Mexico voted for a candidate that was not mexican, I'm sure he/she must have earned the Mexican MCP's trust enough to get a vote. I'm happy to have been part of a global plenary that still focuses on what's best for the network, not paying attention to where the candidate is from.
Chema
I completely agree with you guys but to be more precise I am talking about the message that was given.
ResponderBorrarThere was no message for that vote, there was only a vote that meaned so few for the other candidate but could mean a lot for the members believing in the Mexican one. That's why is useless.
Plus that vote was not the vote that the mc wanted, you talked about the German MCP vote and trust and I can tell you, he voted for the one that the MC believed it was the right one and he did it based in his responsibility in his role and the trust that the team has for him.
It's always more professional to stick to those values than be moved by interest not aligned to your position.
Mexico didn't do that and the vote was based in other type of values. The result, you didn't accomplished what you wanted, disappointed a lot of people and there is no correlation about your role and the image you are giving.
I'm not sure of how certain one can be of such assumptions, you probably get along very well with the current Mexican MC and each of them may or may not have blatantly let you know about this speculated conflict of interests, from my perspective, I'm not able to present a valid posture of mine because I am unaware of the real (or the mentioned "hidden") intentions of the mexican MCP while casting his vote.
BorrarNonetheless, I do know that nation-wide or MC-wide consensus is not usually a criteria that countries follow when their MCP casts his vote in IPM (can you imagine how complicated that would be?) At the end of the day, you represent the majority of an entity and you will most likely, as MCP, make a vote that many people will agree with while finding people that may not necessarily agree with you.
If while being in Germany you still feel that you have the solid grounds to make such an evaluation of the motivations behind the Mexican MCP, then you should feel proud that you are currently in an entity where that type of calamity did not occur. The even hasn't finished yet and I'm certain that there are parts of the objective truth that still haven't been told, so, it's a harsh judgement to make at this point.
Well the intentions where not hidden, where openly known but that's not the point like I said in the text, the reasons behind can be thousands and valids the thing I'm focusing is the message you gave and also at the end was not useful to get what you wanted so it's double waste of oportunities and that's why the vote was useles. Don't get lost to try to get an exact detail of events because even if I they where there the events doesn't change what was done. To put it in a simple context, you had the oportunity to score a gol in a match but you decided to play in a defensive way. You didn't win the match and also the other team didn't got enough points to go to the final. Reasons behind are thousands but the fact is that you lost the oportunity and your strategy was useles, thtat's all
BorrarEste comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
BorrarThe message that people see when an MCP votes for the preferred candidate is completely different if the intention and motivation of the vote given is of personal interest and not a genuine objective vote, that's why the intention matters my friend. You are saying "Mexico voted based in personal reasons and based on an interest of a position in the next A.I. team" under those circumstances, naturally the message will be alarming, the question is, how certain can you be of knowing that that's was what he wanted?
BorrarI recognise, however, that AIESEC in the global scene does get political and an MCP voting for a PAI in order to assure his position in the AI team is not unheard of; however, I would ask you the following question: do you think that every time an MCP votes for a PAI, he should vote for the candidate of his country should there be one?
Well your question has a lot of things to consider because has not context or timming at all and something that matters in life, politics and this kind of things is context.
BorrarSo I'll put your question a context so it can be more acurate.
Based in this particular situation that the Mexican candidate has a lot of quality behind because of his way of working and results in his LC, MC and other roles plus your team and people has a particular preference for that candidate that the only reason for not voting for him was a position in a future team the answer is YES and always has to be YES always under this context. Why? because you have a candidate that has quality, you know him and the reasons for not doing it are just poor.
If you put the question in a context that the Mexican candidate is not good and my reasons are based in a profound analysis of all the candidates then that can be debatible but this is not the case
I was the MCP that cast that vote, and I think you should have at least asked me before posting this. I think you assume too much, to a ridiculous level. If you had asked me, you would've been able to post something well informed, I hadn't even seen this post before. Now THAT is hypocrisy.
BorrarLet me explain.
The application process of our candidate was not very solid. There were big misses in the strategic answers, unauthentic postures at the forum, vagueness in ideas, not a pleasing application, and jokes that didn't come through. It was in fact uncomfortable at points, even for him.
The speech was notable though. And everyone noted it. He was widely regarded and probably the most "loved" candidate of all, despite the devastating result. It was a surprise for everyone to see him with 0 votes, a result he didn't deserve. If I had been able to predict that, I would've given him our vote.
However, as I talked it later with Poncho himself, that same night, one vote wouldn't have made any difference. It would've been a "sympathy vote"; not a good reason to vote either. He would'v been still last, and it would've been obvious for everyone it was Mexico's vote only.
THAT, dude, would've been "Mexico's useless vote".
I agree, Poncho is great. I'm one more big fan of Poncho. I've admired him for years, and I've learned so much from him that I can say today that he has shaped me as a person like no one else before him. But unfortunately, that did not make him the best candidate for PAI.
Your article blames me for choosing to vote for someone based on personal interests. It's the opposite. If I had voted for Poncho based on his nationality, THAT would've been to let personal reasons come between myself and a decision. It would've meant that I care less for the organization and more for my friends. The term in question here is NEPOTISM.
Of course I did want to be part of AI, and I would've loved to be part of Cole's team. But don't mix things. If I had voted for Cole, that wouldn't have changed AT ALL my probability of being selected, even if Cole had been selected. It's stupid to think otherwise. Votes are secret and it's forbidden to tell who you've voted for precisely to avoid this.
I decided to vote not for a nationality, but for a profile. I decided to vote for what I thought was best for the organization globally, for whoever had the best strategic direction and whoever I thought had shown more proficiency in the process.
You mention that it's like cheering for your national team in the World Cup. But your analogy is flawed. The difference is that if you're to choose who to cheer for, you're not affecting anyone but Mexicans. In the case of an election, who you "cheer" or "vote for" involves everyone. In an election, there are consequences for EVERYONE. And it's because EVERYONE is affected by the result that everyone should put their nationalities aside and look for the best interest of all.
We must eliminate nepotism from our choices. We must choose to maximize the benefits of all, not the few. We must cease to be selfish.
It's nepotistic people that select their relatives for power positions, people who choose their friends over capable people. I think nepotist opinions like this one should not propagate. We should never confuse national pride with personal interests in detriment of the common interest.
Democratically elected positions should be done based on reason, ideals, capabilities, and platforms, not on nationality. I hope one day our country learns that difference and I hope you'll all agree.
Thank you for the healthy discussion, best.