A re-poll for the Oxford Union Presidency for Michaelmas 2026 is set to take place on Monday 11th May, after President-Elect Catherine Xu was found guilty by tribunal of electoral fraud. The candidates running to be President in Michaelmas 2026 – Liza Barkova, Hamza Hussain, Gareth Lim, and Victor Andrés Marroquín – spoke to Cherwell about the current state of the Oxford Union, including recent controversies, their vision for their presidency, and their reasons for running.

Introduce yourself briefly. Why are you running to be President?

Liza: Hey, my name is Liza and I am a second-year PPE student at Christ Church. I have served on the Union Committee three times, including Junior Appointed committee, Secretary’s Committee, and Standing Committee. Why I’m running – I come from a country where free speech is often suppressed by the government regime. The Union was the first place where I found that people truly believe that their opinions can matter on an international scale. That experience made a profound impression on me. The Union has an extraordinary platform, but its success ultimately depends on how well it serves the members who use it today. For me, this election is about INSPIRING a culture that genuinely welcomes all opinions.

Gareth: Hello! I’m Gareth Lim, former Chair of Competitive Debating at the Oxford Union and third year Law student at St Peter’s College. I have only ever run in one Union-wide election (the one that we are re-doing). Before this cycle, I exclusively spent my time in the Union managing consistent budget surpluses, coaching debate, and participating in debates. I believe my skill, character, and commitment make me the best candidate.

Victor: My name is Victor Marroquín-Merino. I read for the MSc in Latin American Studies at Oxford, and since graduating in 2024, I have worked in political consulting after co-founding a public affairs and political strategy firm. Over the past year, my life took me away from Oxford and back into the realities of political life in Peru. I never expected to find myself standing in this chamber again as a candidate for President of the Oxford Union Society. But returning to Oxford during one of the most turbulent periods in the Union’s recent history convinced me that the institution needs leadership capable of restoring confidence, competence, and seriousness. I am running because I believe the Union deserves a clean slate – and a return to the standards that once made it one of the most respected debating societies in the world.

Hamza: Hi, I’m Hamza, a final year History and Politics student. I previously served on the Union’s Standing Committee. I am running to be President because I believe the traditions of free speech and debate upheld by the Union are worth defending.

Which manifesto commitment are you most passionate about?

Liza: I am most passionate about the pledge for financial revival. I have a number of ideas for strengthening the Union’s financial structure so that our events have generous budgets while also remaining financially sustainable. This is not a simple task and we cannot perform miracles overnight, but there are realistic steps we can take. One of the most important is building stronger long-term relationships with Union alumni. The Union has an extraordinary network of former members across politics, business, media, and academia. By reconnecting with that network we can both raise funds and create new opportunities for speakers, mentorship, and engagement with current members. Strengthening those connections would be a reliable and sustainable way to support the Union financially.

Gareth: In the last interview, I stated that I was most passionate about expanding member participation in debating. Given additional time for consideration my third manifesto commitment returning intellectual rigour to the Union is, to me, of the widest relevance. Lots of terms often choose to focus on political or IR issues, but I believe that we can expand ourselves to debates about Art, Science, or even the more than occasional comedy debate! 

In some ways, the Union has limited its selection of guests to those involved in politics. The problem is a lot of these guests are often deeply controversial, unavailable, and often not so interesting to members who would prefer a low-cortisol experience. Oxford is a city with a great deal of potential with regards to guests who are deeply intertwined with a great deal ointellectual pursuits and it is a great opportunity to bring a sense of curiosity back to the Union. This allows the average member to participate again, something that I believe is crucial if it is to remain fit for purpose. 

Victor: What matters most to me is restoring confidence in the Union’s leadership and direction. The Union should be known for the quality of its debate, the calibre of its ideas, and the seriousness of its institution – not for constant controversy and constant internal strife. I want members to feel that the Union represents the very best of Oxford again.

Hamza: I am most passionate about my commitment to see greater transparency in the invitation process. I would like to see a common invitation policy introduced to ensure consistency in the process across terms. This would clearly set out how committee members should identify potential speakers and conduct due diligence. 

What do you admire most about your opponents?

Liza: I have a great deal of respect for everyone running in this election. Victor Andrés Morroquin has impressive professional experience. He entered the presidential race at a late stage but has always shown great commitment to the Union. Gareth Lim is an exceptional speaker and an extremely skilled debater. Hamza Hussain has a clear sense of purpose and has devoted a great deal of time to charitable work, which is always important in someone who wants to hold a position of leadership.

Gareth: I’ve said it before and I will say it again – their time management skills. Running for election is exhausting and I’m having so much trouble fitting the rest of my priorities while campaigning. I have no doubt that the other candidates are among the most high-functioning people in the world. 

Victor: Anyone willing to stand for the Union presidency during such a difficult moment clearly cares deeply about the institution, and I respect that commitment. While we may disagree on direction or leadership, I believe everyone running wants to see the Union move forward.

Hamza: Their commitment to the Society and the courage they have shown in putting themselves forward for the Presidency. 

There has been controversy over the past few terms relating to Union disciplinary procedures and tribunal decisions. Do you believe procedures have been misused? What steps will you take to restore faith in Union disciplinary procedures? 

Liza: I am not aware of any outcome of disciplinary procedures to have been improper. I strictly condemn any attempt to rig or misuse these proceedings. More importantly, I am saddened that the previous successful candidate for the Position of President-Elect has chosen to commit fraud during the Hilary election meaning that honest candidates have to repeat this process. As President I will look to ensure that the people in charge of disciplinary processes are chosen in a more transparent way.

Gareth: Short answer – yes. Candidates are incentivised to use the Union disciplinary procedure as a replacement for campaigning. This has led to a culture of fear regarding getting ‘tribbed’ and toxicity within the Union. It is not my place to comment on the results of recent tribunals at this time. It would be highly irresponsible of me to make specific comments that I am unable to back up. But I definitely believe that we have become over-reliant on the disciplinary process. 

To answer the second question – candidates make big promises regarding the restoration of faith in the disciplinary process. Personally I believe that we should stick with following the rules rather than our constant obsession with reforming them. I believe that a president who is running independently, with no ties to slates and who has no reason to stick around after his term, is a good start in removing the culture of fear that surrounds the disciplinary process. 

Victor: I believe the deeper issue is that many members have lost confidence in the consistency, transparency, and legitimacy of Union governance. Regardless of where individuals stand on specific decisions, that loss of trust is damaging for the institution. As President, I would prioritise procedural clarity, transparency, and communication with members. The Union cannot function effectively if large parts of the membership feel disconnected from or distrustful of its internal processes.

Hamza: While I am unable to comment on individual disciplinary hearings where I was not a party, I do believe there are legitimate concerns about how these proceedings affect those involved. I believe the only route forward is to implement the relevant recommendations of reports commissioned by the Union on disciplinary proceedings. 

Do you support the decision to invite Tommy Robinson to the Oxford Union?

Liza: While I believe that the Union should not shy away from controversial topics and it is at the discretion of the President to invite speakers they want, Tommy Robinson has come to the Union in the past and did not contribute anything worth listening to. His stance is based on hate rather than reason which has no place in a debate. I would not have invited him. 

Gareth: No. But I suspect you would like me to elaborate. One side of the argument states that we are a free speech society and should therefore platform important voices in debates. The other side states that Tommy Robinson has a history of endangering the safety of the marginalized. I think the pro-invitation side has missed the point. It is not just that Tommy Robinson causes a culture of fear, but also that he has been invited to the Union before and that I genuinely do not believe that he would add much to our history of reasoned discussion. 

Free-speech is important, but as the Oxford Union, we must use our institutional power responsibly, inviting Tommy Robinson did not fulfill our responsibility to our members. Presidents should publish clear criteria of who they would invite. I would consider the following: First, do they have a history of inciting violence or criminal charges? Second, how influential are they in our society? Thirdly, how beneficial would their invitation be to advancing useful dialogue? Lastly, how interesting will their speech be? While these criteria must be balanced against one another, Tommy Robinson meets none of these criteria. 

Victor: In my view, inviting Tommy Robinson was the wrong decision. I do not believe it contributed meaningful intellectual value proportionate to the level of controversy and division it generated within the membership and across the wider university community. I absolutely do not support this invitation. But I also believe the issue extends beyond any individual speaker. The Union has a long tradition of defending free speech and hosting controversial figures, and that principle matters. However, free speech also requires judgement, responsibility, and serious consideration of how invitations affect the institution and its members.

Hamza: I would not have invited him. I support the Union’s right to invite controversial speakers for scrutiny, but whether individual invitations are wise should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Tommy Robinson already has a platform and has previously spoken at the Union. No individual has the right to an invitation by the Union, and the President should always act in the interests of the Society, its members, and with due regard for the impact of their decisions. 

Recent weeks have seen widespread opposition from other student societies regarding the platforming of Union speakers, including Carl Benjamin, Tommy Robinson, and Karim Khan. How would you respond to criticism from other university societies in your presidency?

Liza: In the Union all members have the opportunity to ask public questions to the President before the start of the debate. These questions may be put as concerns raised by other university societies. I would have to answer in front of the entire chamber. This would ensure accountability in a civilised and most effective environment.

Gareth: Being receptive to feedback is an important part of being a leader. However, one must also know when to stand their ground with regards to criticism, after all one is elected to serve members of the Oxford Union, not those of other societies. 

I would like to make clear that I would not have invited Carl Benjamin or Tommy Robinson to begin with. However, once decisions are made and invitations made, I believe it is worse to reverse course to rescind an invitation. That compromises the Union’s credibility with future invitations even when those guests are credible. Of course, this depends on how severe the failings of the invitees in question are – ultimately, the best guiding principle is that of preserving the credibility of the Union, now and in the future. 

Victor: The Union cannot keep existing in its own bubble, constantly at war with the wider university community. I want to rebuild those relationships through common sense, better judgement, and a more grounded approach to leadership – one that actually listens to members and brings people back into the institution rather than pushing them away.

Hamza: The decision to invite speakers should rightly sit with the President elected by the members, but this should not mean that dialogue with societies is cut off. I would be happy to sit down and talk with those concerned with the Union’s conduct so their voices can be heard. Objections should be considered on their own merits, and speaker invitations should be handled with seriousness and sensible judgement.

Anything else you might like to add.

Liza: I have stood through many things that happened in the Union and have seen its effects and consequences. What I found is that the culture of the Union is built around the people who contribute to it. Together with my team, I want to inspire a culture of integrity among its people, I hope that the institution as a whole can improve as well.

Gareth: Two things. Firstly, vote with your conscience. Read all the manifestos and vote with the candidate that you believe is going to be the best president rather than what someone else tells you. Your vote is important and if you would like to put your membership to good use, you should exercise your voice. I believe that my organisational experience, character and fresh perspective make me the best candidate for the Presidency. I hope to have your vote, but will be just as happy if you let your own voice be heard through your ballot! 

Secondly, candidates always make the point that the Union is in chaos and that they are the one to fix it. I would encourage voters to ask themselves when the Union’s troubles began, this is not a recent phenomenon that can be tied to any particular Presidents’ term. You should vote for someone who you believe has been uninvolved in any of the Union’s drama and someone who has the competence to fulfill their promises. 

Victor: This election is ultimately about whether members believe the Union can recover from the instability and controversy of recent terms. I believe it can – but doing so requires competent leadership, intellectual seriousness, and institutional responsibility. Having spent the past year working in real-world political strategy and public affairs during a national election cycle, I believe I can bring the experience and judgement this moment demands. That is the campaign I am running. #RETURN