Regardless of your longevity of your high school MUN career, it can be considered a well grounded assertion by many that each delegate leading the debate, in whichever conference you’re at, often have a specific debate and networking style they stick by. It may be defined naturally by their personality, what they found worked the best throughout the course of MUN, somewhat adapted to the different feel of a committee, or the country they are at the moment. I, myself, often follow and pursue a style that complements my committee personality, country, and the “vibe” of the committee I’m in (competitiveness wise). I’ll break down the two major styles below, that could be tweaked by any of the before mentioned variables.

 

1) Assertive- Countries that fit this description: China, Russia, USA (current presidential administration), Saudi Arabia, you get the jist. Assertive committee style is direct confrontation with opposing ideas, and wording it blatantly as, “It’s either OUR way or the WRONG WAY”. Of course, it’s not as meathead and aggressive and it sounds. It's a delicate balance between fighting for polarizing diplomatic policies your country adores and sticks by, and seeing how far you can push a countries buttons to adopt as much of your nations mentality as possible. This could be seen in an immigration debate between the US and Canada on a resolution. While Canada would most likely fight for a higher asylum acceptance rate each year in a resolution, if the US cannot get the before country mentioned to almost completely shut down any immigration flow from flagged country, he/she would fight tooth and nail for lengthy, strict vetting, increasing the list of “high risk countries’’, maybe even debating the possibility of if they should be able to receive federal aid (in terms of welfare). In the end, it’s making sure your countries ideas are well heard, voicing wrongs in others, and ensure that your countries ideas are the most well represented in a final paper. If you want real life examples, it can be seen from major political figureheads such as former US ambassador to the UN Samantha Powers, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Barack Obama.

 

Pros- Fewer people will be on your resolution, as most likely only delegates with similar ideas or willing to compensate will join, but it will be a formidable, strong, well versed bloc. Your ideas will be well known in committee as well.If you succeed in pulling off this style, it scores big points with chairs in showing that you are a leader, can fight diplomatically for your countries ideas, and that you can skillfully handle spotlight time when you get a turn to speak. You have a higher chance of becoming the “face” of your bloc, and can garner attention more easily than in a larger bloc.

 

Cons- Be careful to not come on too strong, or it might become suddenly personal for others. Being assertive does not mean being rude, it should only define your speeches and resolutions, not the way you behave towards other delegates on a personal level. Make sure you well describe to eager delegates who wants to join your bloc on why such ideas are accepted, and why others aren’t. If you need to turn someone down, inform them of another bloc who might have similar ideas! Be polite, it makes a big difference in the eyes of others. Don’t become a shark.

 

2)  Collaborative- Countries that fit this description: Canada, Germany, France, Australia, etc… Some say people are stronger in numbers, and that might just be right in some scenarios. A delegate who perfected their collaborative technique is a friend of all, and enemy of none. All ideas are accepted, everyone contributes, and the resolution is often comprehensive, ideology wise. Speeches would be along the lines of uniting the committee with all of its diverse methods of battling a topic, regardless from what political background you are and what your take is. This technique is often employed , and can have mixed results, but this again depends on the delegates in the committee and the topic. Major political figureheads who employ this are Justin Trudeau, Enrique Nieto, Angela Merkel, in addition to Stefan Lofven.

 

Pros - Widespread approval of the resolution is likely, and has a larger rate of passing than an assertive resolution. More hands, also mean more ideas, and more ideas mean the more creative the clauses itself. In addition, more delegates can help doing various things to ensure that all goes smoothly. Generally, there will be positive sentiments surrounding your bloc.

 

Cons- While strength is in numbers, it is easy to get lost in the mass. You have a smaller chance of getting noticed by chairs in a massive, all agreeing bloc which makes it an important detail to make sure you stay on top of everything, from communicating group to group, reminding yourself to update committee on bloc activity during caucuses, to ensuring you talk to all delegates of a bloc. It’s crucial to set yourself up as a leader in response to being in a more collaborative environment.

 

 Remember, you can easily blend the two to whatever extent you think will work the best. Pay attention to your surroundings, and the behavior of your fellow delegates. You don’t want to come on too strong in a committee full of unsure newbies, and too soft in a crisis council full of 14 shark delegates. Examining your debate and caucus style can easily put you ahead of the competition, I definitely attribute the success of my 2017-2018 season off of my committee self awareness. Just remember, if it doesn't work at first, try and try again.