GISA 2025 Autumn Elections: Welfare and Environmental Committee Debates

On Tuesday, 7 October, in Auditorium A2 of Maison de la Paix, candidates running for the Environmental Committee and Welfare Committee presidencies took the stage as part of the GISA Autumn Elections 2025. The atmosphere was relaxed but attentive, with a mix of laughter, sharp questions, and honest reflections on what it means to care for the student community, whether through sustainability or wellbeing.

Environmental committee section

The debate began with Akansha Gupta and Malak Helal, who are running together as co-presidents for the Environmental Committee. Both are second-year MINT students in the Environment and Sustainability track, and both have already spent a year in the EC, Akansha working on partnerships and event organization, and Malak focusing on advocacy and communications.

Their familiarity with each other showed in the way they alternated seamlessly while speaking. Akansha spoke about building external partnerships and continuing successful initiatives such as upcycling workshops, while Malak highlighted her work on communication channels and Welcome Month activities for this year. Together, they framed their campaign around continuity rather than reinvention.

One of the main points raised by Malak was the perception that the EC is only for students specializing in environment and sustainability. “That’s a misconception we want to change,” she said, calling for cross-disciplinary engagement through panels and events that connect environmental issues with other fields of study. Both candidates also stressed the need to push tangible campus-wide initiatives, such as the cigarette butt awareness campaign, and to ensure that sustainability efforts are visible beyond the Institute.

The pair emphasized professional development as another priority—linking EC activities with alumni events, networking sessions, and skill-based workshops. “We bring both implementation and strategic skills,” Akansha added, noting that their complementary strengths would help maintain a balance between advocacy and action.

When asked why they decided to run as co-presidents and how they would handle disagreements, both acknowledged that clear communication is key. “We’ve worked together long enough to know how to find common ground,” Malak said, responding to a question from a student in the audience about how they would manage conflicts. The exchange reflected an easy confidence between the two, shaped by shared experience rather than formal rehearsal.

Welfare Committee section

If the Environmental Committee debate was structured and steady, the Welfare Committee session that followed was more animated, sometimes introspective, sometimes humorous, but always sincere. This time we had six candidates presenting their visions for the committee – Maryam Khalil, Mehmet Fatih İzgi, Deepanita Kundu, Erin Katrina Titiheruw, Bhavya Goel, and Vania Petlane.

Maryam Khalil, 1st-year MINT student, Conflict, Peace and Security track opened the discussion by emphasizing that welfare must begin with listening. Drawing on her experience working with welfare organizations and schools in Egypt, she argued that welfare should not be treated only as crisis management, but as empowerment. Her proposals included activities like dance and yoga classes to create a sense of shared wellbeing.

Mehmet Fatih İzgi, 2nd-year MINT student, Conflict, Peace and Security track followed with a call to make the Institute feel more socially alive. He spoke about hosting board game nights and informal student gatherings to help students connect beyond academic spaces. “We come to class and go home,” he said. “We need spaces that make us want to stay.”

Deepanita, 1st-year MINT student, Conflict, Peace and Security track brought a deeply personal tone to the debate, speaking openly about her experience living with clinical anxiety. She called for a neurodivergent support group and more structural welfare mechanisms, arguing that students should not have to rely on each other for survival. “We deserve access to frameworks that already exist,” she said, referring to gaps in institutional support for mental health and financial wellbeing.

Erin Katrina Titiheruw, second-year MINT student, who has studied in multiple countries, spoke about her understanding of transition and adjustment. She proposed to continue and refine existing initiatives, especially the Buddy Program, aiming to make it more reliable and community-oriented. Erin framed her campaign around the idea of “continuity with care.”

Bhavya Goel, 2nd-year MINT student, Gender, Race and Diversity track already the treasurer of the Welfare Committee, brought the conversation back to the importance of consistency and accountability. Having managed budgets and worked on campaigns, she spoke with the confidence of experience, emphasising that the next committee should consolidate what already exists rather than start from scratch.

Finally, Vania Petlane, 2nd-year MINT student, Human Rights and Humanitarianism track and the current Advocacy Coordinator, closed the round with her trademark directness. “I love welfare and I am welfare,” she said. Her focus was on targeted outreach: reaching students who genuinely need support without oversaturating campus life with events. She also proposed maintaining wellness classes year-round and expanding welfare measures already being done by the committee.

As the debate went on, candidates were asked how they would “sell” their new activities to students and how aware they were of the committee’s funding. The selling part became a largely repetitive aspect of questioning in the debate. Most acknowledged the challenge of balancing ambition with limited resources. Bhavya noted her familiarity with the budget, while Maryam and Deepanita pointed out the importance of listening to what students actually want before planning new initiatives.

The mood lightened when a student asked a pointed question: whether some candidates were running for welfare out of genuine commitment or just to secure a GISA position. The question drew laughs, but also genuine answers. “If I just wanted to be on GISA, I wouldn’t be running again after losing last year,” Vania replied. Mehmet admitted that running for GISA “wasn’t his first plan,” while Erin said she chose to run after realising how much she valued her conversations with students. Maryam added, “There are people here way more qualified than me. The only reason I’m here is because I care about welfare.” The exchange ended with Vania’s supportive comment to Maryam: “You are also deserving to be in the space.”

A later question about confidentiality and trust in welfare work led to a more reflective moment. Erin clarified that while the committee could listen and guide, some matters should be handled by professionals. This was again echoed by other members of the board. Deepanita emphasized approachability “being someone you can walk up to and talk to”, while Mehmet and Vania stressed sensitivity to context and boundaries.

When asked about synergy with the GISA Board, candidates largely agreed that welfare work must align with the broader student governance structure. Erin spoke of maintaining consistency and communication, Bhavya underlined accountability, Deepanita mentioned bridging gaps between first- and second-year students, and Vania noted that welfare should “support rather than overwhelm” other mandates. Mehmet summed it up succinctly: “Welfare is something we all have to work together on.”

The debate closed with a question about two former co-runners, Vania Petlane and Bhavya Goel, who had decided to campaign individually this year after previously running together for the Welfare Committee presidency. Both confirmed that the decision had been mutual and amicable, explaining that separating their candidacies allowed each to pursue her own vision while maintaining shared goals. They emphasised that they still plan to collaborate closely within the Welfare Committee, continuing the teamwork they built as Advocacy Coordinator and Treasurer respectively, a fitting end note for a discussion that had been, above all else, about collaboration.

Voting is open till 11 October 9AM, Vote now!

(You can read all of their platforms here.)