An issue debated by a student government rarely attracts as much attention as the outgoing ASSU Senate’s rejection of a watered-down resolution calling for the University to reevaluate its investments in Israel and Palestine. Divestment presented the Senate with a unique opportunity to shape a decision — one way or the other — with real, if only symbolic, significance.

Given the importance of the divestment resolution, we are perplexed by the decisions of five ASSU senators (of 13 who were eligible) to abstain from voting on divestment. Abstentions by public officials are supposed to be uncommon in a democratic system. Voters choose to support a candidate partly on the basis of his or her campaign platform and governing ideals. Voters subsequently expect their elected officials to legislate and vote in a manner consistent with the philosophies on which those in power campaigned.

An abstention, absent an accompanying rationalization, fails to convey any information about an elected official’s beliefs on the topic at hand. Constituents do not know whether the official is skirting the issue due to fear of alienating some interest group, whether she is trying to make a salient point in a roundabout way or whether she is simply too lazy or ambivalent to read up on the bill. To pass the buck — particularly on such a high-profile resolution as divestment — is to default on the responsibilities that voters have invested in an elected official.

There are, of course, some exceptional situations in which an abstention is appropriate. For instance, ASSU senators commonly abstain from funding bills for student groups with which they have a conflict of interest.

In the case of divestment, the five senators’ rationales for abstaining were not readily clear but seem to fall along three lines of reasoning. First, at least one abstaining senator felt that the divestment bill was too complex to vote on. This explanation is unsatisfactory. The call for divestment was initiated in late January and did not culminate in a floor vote until mid-April — senators had nearly three months and ample opportunity to educate themselves.

Second, some senators may have chosen to abstain to avoid alienating large portions of the student body. It is understandable that senators seek to ingratiate themselves with diverse groups of students. But when the time comes to vote, those who have the privilege of serving their peers must be prepared to make tough decisions.

A third possible justification reckons that an abstention signified a senator’s belief that discussion of divestment from Israel has no rightful place in the Senate, that divestment transcends the scope of the ASSU. If this is the case, a “no” vote would convey precisely the same message without the ambiguity of an abstention. In fact, due to a provision requiring “yes” votes from two-thirds of senators in attendance to pass a resolution, an abstention was tantamount to a “no” vote in terms of its impact on the ultimate outcome. Whatever the abstaining senators’ reasoning, students deserve to know more.

Controversy over abstentions extends beyond campus politics. U.S. Senator and presidential candidate John McCain drew criticism last week for abstaining from an Iraq war appropriations bill that tied troop funding to a deadline for withdrawal. In skirting the issue, McCain may have avoided a potentially crushing blow to his campaign. But his decision did little to enhance his image.

Just as a U.S. senator ought to be present for a major vote, so too should an ASSU senator feel obliged to vote “yes” or “no” on an issue as high profile as divestment. What is more, ASSU senators — unlike their counterparts in Washington, D.C. — rarely run for re-election. Because they are typically insulated from the demands of re-election, senators should theoretically be free to vote their consciences.

Fortunately, the mass abstentions from the divestment vote appear to be an anomaly — which, given the innocuous nature of most Senate bills, hardly comes as a surprise. The incoming Senate would do well to ensure that the recent abstentions do not become a precedent.