A positive negative campaign

A positive negative campaign

So much political ground has been broken this year. Indonesians
can now vote directly for individual candidates for the country's
highest public offices, who are actually obligated to engage in
an open "discussion" -- a poor excuse for a policy debate --
about their policy platforms.

More than just a breath of fresh air, the process of scrutiny
is a heartening gush of relief after 30 years of staged political
proceedings that just highlighted conceit and vested elite
interests. And behold, despite what the New Order's version of a
politically correct textbook said about the dangers of debate and
argumentation, we have found that a healthy polemic is not
divisive in this nation; and having two strong candidates in an
open political contest does not fracture society and pit groups
against one another.

In the last four months we have seen presidential hopefuls who
are usually shielded by protocol and vanity, come down to earth
to prostrate themselves in front of the people by "shaking hands
and kissing babies" and, occasionally, answering a difficult
question or two.

This can only be good for a nation that is just crawling out
of three decades of democratic hibernation.

Many feared that Indonesia was progressing too fast in
adopting a process of liberal democracy. As it turns out, the
majority of Indonesians have proven to be more mature and
politically responsible than most of us imagined. In the space of
24 months, Indonesia amended its Constitution, passed five new
key political laws, embraced a new system of checks and balances
along with the establishment of several relevant institutions,
and by October will have held three truly democratic elections.

While we acknowledge this progress as a breakthrough, it
should not stop us from even "bolder" endeavors, including the
practice of critically dissecting the track records of
candidates.

Unfortunately, most of our esteemed leaders remain allergic to
close scrutiny, even if perfectly legitimate. Instead, they
insist that only their stated election platforms be put under the
microscope. They maintain that Indonesia does not want to go down
the same path as the Western democracies where campaigning often
flirts with slander.

No one wants to see a campaign based on defamation. But a
"negative" campaign consisting of critiques of a candidate's past
actions and beliefs should be fair game for the electorate.
Discussion and debate are required characteristics of a healthy
democratic system. It is not a source of intolerance, and as
former president Sukarno in 1954 remarked "isn't democracy (and
elections) itself a manifestation of tolerance?"

Despite pages upon pages of promises, alas, most of the
platforms presented by the two candidates do not present enough
meat for voters to make a discernible difference between them
other than gender.

Their platforms remain couched in a lot of rhetoric, tailored
to conceal rather than to articulate. The candidates appeal to an
audience by telling it what it wants to hear. Their platforms and
campaign pledges are not statements of truth, but devices of
self-interested oration.

Such self-serving devices are common in elections in order not
give too much away. We should be cautious of them.

As high as the expectations of the people toward this
democratic process, the two candidates for Indonesia's first
directly elected president should not be allowed to get away with
avoidance by only revealing what they want in order to stay in
control. Supporters of our two final nominees should do more than
just reply that he was just following orders, or she inherited
the evils of the past. The candidates should not be able to
dismiss legitimate queries of their past by simply discarding it
as "cheap politics".

Otherwise we will only have, if not already, candidates who
say a lot without actually saying much at all. It is by their
past actions, not their promises, that allow voters to better
gauge the value of a candidate.