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.