Fallacies in the thinking of the political elites

Muhammad Qodari, Jakarta

Except for Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, or SBY as he is popularly known, who has confirmed Jusuf Kalla (JSK) as his running mate, other presidential hopefuls are still shopping around to find their most compatible vice presidential (VP) candidates.

Last week, one of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle's (PDI-P) top officials, Roy B Janis, said the party had chosen Hamzah Haz, leader of the Islamist United Development Party (PPP) and Megawati's current VP as her running mate.

Hamzah was picked because he represented the Islamic part of Indonesian society, he said.

However, this choice is not a certainty. It is said the PDI-P is now considering another prominent figure from the Muslim community, Hasyim Muzadi, the leader of Nahdlatul Ulama, the biggest and most moderate Muslim organization in the country. Of course the PPP was disappointed and threatened to nominate Hamzah as its presidential candidate despite the fact Hamzah had never declared his intention to run for the presidency.

I've been watching the "courting period" by presidential and VP aspirants with great uneasiness. It appears to me political elites from all sides have used a Yin-Yang formula when trying to form a coalition. They believe the best pairing to win the presidential election will be one that combines the dichotomies in Indonesian politics: Civilian-Military, nationalist-Islamist and Java-outside Java.

That is why the PDI-P is considering a pairing of Megawati (Java and nationalist) with Hamzah Haz (outside Java and Islamist). That is why since last year Amien Rais of the National Mandate Party (PAN) has declared his VP should be a figure from the Military. Amien considers himself a civilian candidate with Islamic credentials and is looking for a former army general whose nationalist ideology is assured. The reason Amien is now inviting Siswono Yudohusodo, a nationalist figure, to become his running mate is because no general has yet agreed to his offer.

Wiranto, the presidential candidate from the Golkar Party, also believes that as a military-cum-nationalist figure he has to pick a civilian-cum-Islamic figure as his running mate. Wiranto reportedly has approached the NU-backed National Awakening Party (PKB) for a possible VP position.

Since Abdurrahman Wahid, the most powerful person in the PKB, has had a strained relationship with Hasyim Muzadi, Wiranto has also approached Hasyim separately. As the presidential aspirants from Golkar and the PDI-P, the two biggest political parties of this year, are from nationalist camps, candidates nominated by the PKB and/or NU are now in hot demand.

As I said earlier, I have been watching this whole process of searching for running mates with great uneasiness. Why? Because I think the notion among political elites that a good presidential pairing should represent dichotomies in politics is flawed -- and even dangerous.

Recent national surveys by the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI) in August and November and March in April all showed the reasons voters chose particular candidates had nothing to do with whether they were from the military or were civilians, came from Islamic or nationalist camps, or had Javanese blood or not.

It was personal qualities, not backgrounds, that were deemed most important by the majority of voters -- the candidates' perceived competency in solving economic crises, security problems and corruption in the country. Also considered important were candidates' physical appearance and personal traits: The qualities of authoritativeness and honesty, in particular came out strongly. While there were indeed voters who chose candidates because they were Islamic leaders or military figures, or came from the same ethnic background as they did, this group was a minority.

This explains, for example, why Susilo is much more popular than Wiranto. In the LSI survey from March 18 to March 24, Susilo's was the most popular candidate with 21 percent of the vote while Wiranto only polled 4.8 percent. In our April 8 to April 15 survey, the popularity of Susilo snowballed and reached 40.6 percent compared to 5.8 percent for Wiranto.

Both candidates are retired four-star generals but many more respondents support Susilo because he is perceived as being more able to solve problems and people like his physical appearance and personal image. Being in Cabinet for the past four years has given voters more opportunities to evaluate Susilo in terms of his capabilities and appearance than Wiranto, who has been absent from public life until his recent return as a contestant at the Golkar convention.

I believe, if the elites had realized one's background was not as influential as they had thought, they would have searched for a candidate who was the most competent and had the most positive image. In a political campaign, Susilo, if he understands the real reasons why voters pick a certain candidate, will highlight Jusuf Kalla's proven track record in the economy and his positive image instead of his background as a prominent figure from eastern Indonesia.

Too much emphasis on a candidate's background is also dangerous -- because it sends out the wrong message to Indonesian voters. In an infant democracy, citizens must always be taught that what is important in choosing a leader is their competency and personal integrity.

Discourses on political coalitions and presidential pairings that focus too much on candidates' sociological backgrounds, be they regional, ideological, civilian or military, are not conducive to the development of a culture of meritocracy among Indonesian politicians.

In order to win the hearts and minds of the country's voters and develop meritocracy in this young democracy, the elites should change their rhetoric when searching for presidential pairings. Criteria that should be promoted are candidates' competency and integrity. The candidates should go even further -- and look for running mates whose political visions have been transformed into workable programs.

It would be great for Indonesian voters and democracy in this country if all candidates in the presidential election made a deal. This deal would have nothing to do with their backgrounds or the allocation of seats in Cabinet. It would be a deal to create the best policies for the betterment of the country.

The writer (qodari@lsi.or.id) is Director of Research at the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI).