Down with the Chair?
“If you can motion to remove a delegate for disruptive behavior, you should be able to remove a chair.”
The chair is undoubtedly intrinsic to a Model United Nations conference — they control the flow of the discussions and ensure the smooth running of sessions. But when they believe that a chair has behaved unprofessionally, shown bias, or failed to fulfill their responsibilities, what is a delegate’s first course of action? Recently, we’ve heard of a controversial notion circulating: the motion to remove a chair. While incredibly rare and dependent on individual conference rules, this idea has raised a challenging question — should delegates be allowed the power to call for a chair’s removal?
Unconventional and most of the time, not officially codified, the idea of removing a chair is challenging as each conference may have its own procedures for handling grievances. Geoffrey Wen, chair of GA6, believes that this motion is “unnecessary and unreasonable to amuse”, as delegates are encouraged to bring complaints directly to the secretariat. “The THIMUN secretariat,” he says, “already does a really good job at it. They have shifts in between committees, so they randomly step in and monitor as needed. If there’s an issue, delegates should report and bring it to the attention of the secretariat.”
However, some argue the opposite. Delegates carry the weight of strenuous expectations and have to maintain a certain level of decorum, so shouldn’t chairs be subjected to the same standards? As delegate Vivan Aansud proclaimed, “It should definitely be allowed. If you can motion to remove a delegate for disruptive behavior, it’s only fair that you should be able to remove a chair”, citing instances in which chairs have behaved unprofessionally. He believes that without a formal and legitimate way to uphold chairs’ accountability and responsibility, delegates are left without recourse in cases of chair misconduct, describing chairs who “use their phones, apply makeup, or just walk out in the middle of the session without saying anything”.
Aaansud compares the chair’s role as an authority figure to a teacher’s, adding that “you talk to the principal about them if they aren’t doing their job”. He believes that allowing such a motion gives delegates a “sense of empowerment and justice, almost, which is the theme of this conference” – to be just and fair. Aansud thought that this motion was an embodiment of democratic principles, allowing delegates to have a say in how their conferences are run. In this view, allowing delegates to utilize this motion would pave the way for formal channels encouraging chairs to conscientiously fulfill their roles to the best of their ability.
However, introducing a formal motion may undermine the structure and stability of these conferences. Geoffrey Wen believes that a motion for renewal could create unnecessary disruptions and that “complaining about a chair isn’t democracy. At the end of the day, the selection of the chair was a democratic process as well.” Interestingly though, when asked whether or not younger and less experienced delegates would abuse this motion, Wen found that younger chairs tend to be more “on their toes and afraid of consequences, while older delegates could be either more mature or feel privileged and superior”.
Ultimately, we leave the question of whether or not delegates should be allowed to declare “down with the chair” up to you. Is it more important to preserve smooth proceedings for all, or to grant delegates their individual right to express concerns about leadership?
