Lessons from the first direct presidential election<\/p>\n
Jusuf Wanandi<\/p>\n
Indonesia has had a successful first direct presidential
\nelection. The process of the elections was beyond expectations:
\nfair, peaceful, and democratic. The people participated
\nenthusiastically because they believe that the elections can make
\na real difference to their lives.<\/p>\n
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono or SBY has come out as the winner,
\nand convincingly so as he has gained about 22 percent more votes
\nthan his competitor, Megawati. The outcome of this election
\nsuggests a number of important things.<\/p>\n
First, it clearly means that the role of the political parties
\nand social leaders is much less important in a direct
\npresidential election than in the parliamentary election. The
\ngrand coalition between Golkar and PDI-P was also a big
\ndisappointment. They both experience serious internal rifts and
\nwere unable to project a new image and provide assurance that
\nthey can manage the country, despite the efforts of Golkar's
\nChairman Akbar Tandjung, which might be too little and too late.<\/p>\n
Second, and perhaps more importantly, it shows that the
\ngeneral public wants to see change. A sizeable proportion of the
\nvoters that felt being left behind following the financial crisis
\nappear to be very unhappy with the status quo. They have become
\nimpatient as they continue to suffer. If about 30 to 40 million
\npeople are unemployed or underemployed, they will understandably
\nvote out the incumbent that has not been able to provide jobs for
\nthem. To demonstrate their sovereign right, the voters really see
\nthat they now have the opportunity to change. Susilo simply
\nrepresents change. The voters have exercised this right. It needs
\nto be noted that they no longer have political loyalties and
\nreally look at results. This is essentially what was implied in
\nthe concept of \"floating mass\", proposed more than 30 years ago.<\/p>\n
Third, television is playing an increasing role in influencing
\nand educating people, even in the most remote parts of the
\ncountry. The last 20 years saw remarkable penetration of
\ntelevision. The people now have access to alternative views and
\nideas and are no longer dependent on those espoused by local
\npolitical parties or social leaders. Television is also a
\npowerful media to project images. SBY's popularity is largely due
\nto his coverage on television. He has been able to make the most
\nof it from the time that he was a coordinating minister in
\nMegawati's cabinet. In contrast, Megawati failed to make use of
\nit because of her minimal public exposure.<\/p>\n
Fourth, public opinion polls also may have an influence on
\nvoters' behavior. As such polls are able to make rather accurate
\npredictions in the April parliamentary elections. They might have
\nhad an impact on the outcome of the presidential election. SBY's
\nlead in the polls after the first round could have had a
\nbandwagon effect that was very much in his favor. The impact of
\npolls on the outcome of elections has led to questions about the
\nneed to put some limitations on foreign participation in
\nconducting such polls. Partisanship of some polling organizations
\nhas also been raised. What could best be done is not to allow
\nresults of opinion polls be announced at least one week before
\nthe election is held.<\/p>\n
Fifth, and perhaps the most important factor determining the
\noutcome of the presidential election, was Megawati's
\nunwillingness or incapability to show to the people that she is
\nwilling to change her style of governance and to bring in new
\npeople.<\/p>\n
Those who were opposed to SBY\/Kalla or were still undecided
\nhad been waiting for those signs. Even many of her supporters
\nwere uncomfortable with the thought of another five years without
\nchange. On the other hand, rightly or wrongly, Susilo is seen as
\nthe candidate for change. His popularity began to rise when he
\nwas seen as the underdog. In the end, his image as a leader who
\nwants to see things happen was perhaps the most powerful factor.
\nEssentially, people want a pro-active leader that can deliver and
\nnot a president that is only a symbol.<\/p>\n
The beauty of the process is that the people have spoken. They
\nmay find out that much of their expectations will not be
\nfulfilled by the new government. Indeed, Susilo will be faced
\nwith enormous challenges. For now, the new leadership should be
\ngiven the benefit of the doubt. Various reservations and concerns
\nabout their ideas and leadership have been aired, and hopefully
\nthey will take them into consideration.<\/p>\n
The democratic process of leadership change is only one aspect
\nof a democratic system of governance. This system can be
\nstrengthened only if political parties are consolidated and
\nstrong. The country cannot afford to see the disintegration of
\nthe two largest political parties, Golkar and PDI-P. They should
\nbe consolidated so that they can play a constructive role as an
\nopposition in a system of healthy checks and balances.<\/p>\n
The writer is co-founder, and member, Board of Trustees,
\nCentre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/lessons-from-the-first-direct-presidential-election-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}