'Success' vs success<\/p>\n
The first week of the election campaign ended yesterday on an
\nencouraging note. It had proceeded relatively peacefully. Except
\nfor the few skirmishes or clashes in some regions, we have not
\nseen any violence of the scale many of us had feared. In
\nretrospect, we may have overplayed our own fears, although they
\nwere not totally unfounded. When the campaign period began, the
\nnation was still haunted by the disturbing images of ethnic
\nstrife in Ambon, Maluku, and in Sambas, West Kalimantan, and
\nprecampaign clashes in the Central Java towns of Jepara and
\nPekalongan, and in Buleleng, Bali.<\/p>\n
All things considered, we could certainly call the first week
\na \"success\" from the security point of view. By and large, the 48
\npolitical parties have abided by the rules, and their leaders and
\nsupporters have shown great restraint. The hundreds of thousands
\nof supporters of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI
\nPerjuangan) who flooded the main streets of Jakarta on Sunday
\neven turned the campaign into a family picnic atmosphere.<\/p>\n
It is, however, premature to completely let our guard down.
\nThere are 10 more days of campaigning, and the way things have
\nbeen going in Indonesia, anything can still happen. But if
\nparties, their supporters and the security apparatus can keep
\nthis up for the remaining campaign period, then Indonesia is well
\non its way to its first ever democratic election in four decades.<\/p>\n
While peace is absolutely crucial in ensuring that the June 7
\nelections take place, security should not be the sole criteria to
\njudge the success of the campaign period, lest we have all been
\nbrought up to think like members of the military. Equally
\nimportant, if not more, is whether the political parties have
\ndone their job in getting their political messages across to
\nvoters. In other words, we need to look at the substance of the
\ncampaign itself.<\/p>\n
The experience of the first week of the campaign period was
\nnot encouraging. The quality of the campaign, including the
\norganization, has been appalling to say the least. The nightly TV
\nmonologs were dull and monotonous, and the TV campaign dialogs
\nwere poorly organized (or more aptly choreographed). Campaign
\nrallies in open fields, with all the security hazards they posed,
\nfared only slightly better because some exchanges between party
\nleaders and supporters still took place. But they are limited to
\nshouting slogans and symbols, and singing nursery rhymes. There
\nis little intellectual content in most of these campaigns.<\/p>\n
This is, however, more a reflection of the organizers, party
\ncampaigners and their candidates, and not of the public. They
\nneed the political education much more than the voters do.<\/p>\n
An aggressive public service advertisement has succeeded in
\ngetting the message across to the people that they have real and
\ngenuine choices to make in the elections. But it is uncertain
\nwhether the political parties and their leaders are really
\nreaching the voters with their messages. This poses the question
\nof whether voters will really make informed choices, which is
\nwhat a democratic election should really be about, on balloting
\nday.<\/p>\n
At the very least, this campaign period has brought home the
\nsorry state of Indonesian politics: there is a dearth shortage of
\ngood and truly tested politicians. Few of them have the
\ncommunication skills which are essential of politicians,
\nespecially in this information age. None match the eloquence and
\nthe oratorical and debating skills, or the depths of Indonesia's
\nfounding fathers like Sukarno, M. Hatta and Sutan Sjahrir. Most
\npresent political leaders, including the few presidential
\nwannabes, have rarely moved out of their respective comfort
\nzones. Unless they begin addressing the entire nation, then they
\nwill remain leaders of their own groups, but not of the entire
\nnation, even after they get elected to office.<\/p>\n
These shortcomings are the legacy of the rigid political
\nsystem of the New Order, where politics were the privilege of a
\nfew select people. The rest of the nation was depoliticized. It
\nwill take a long time to undo the damage that the 32 years of the
\nNew Order regime has done to our political culture, traditions
\nand even mentality. The first week of the campaign period has
\nshown that we have barely moved away from the starting line of a
\nvery, very long learning curve to democracy.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/success-vs-success-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}