A very hypocritical campaign, voters lose in such a situation

Irman G. Lanti, Jakarta

The presidential election campaign is nearing its end. So far, the reception of the public has been lukewarm at best. Despite the efforts of the candidates and their teams to sell their platforms, the public still cannot tell the difference between the platform of one candidate and that of another.

The media has attempted to cover the campaign, while campaign teams are a standard source of information. The opinions of experts and political analysts have peppered the pages of newspapers and magazines. Campaign posters, stickers, and other paraphernalia can be found on almost every street corner. Television and radio stations carry features on the candidates, as well as numerous "debates" between them. And yet, only a handful of the urban educated middle class can actually differentiate between the platforms of the candidates.

This is partly due to a lack of distinction in the programs of the candidates themselves. The "cross-fertilization" of two candidates from different political streams is responsible for this. While such attempts to combine Islamic and nationalist streams -- which are apparent in all of the candidates -- may be positive for national integration, it has created significant difficulties in the attempt to create a common platform that can be distinguished from the others. It is very much like attempting to combine Al Gore and Dick Cheney, or Bill Clinton and the late Ronald Reagan, on a single ticket.

As a result, the platforms of the various candidates are only able to identify the problems faced by the nation -- albeit correctly, such as unemployment, lack of investment, corruption, the rule of law, and social conflicts, but rarely have the public been informed of any credible policy alternatives that the candidates would carry out if elected. Consequently, the campaign is marked by slogans, rhetoric, and promises that sometimes ring hollow to the voters.

The electorate then has limited information, based on which its votes are decided. In such a situation, two things will play a significant role: The personal image of the candidates, and their track records. Much like in the recent legislative election, this election may well be driven by emotional factors or the candidates' popularity. The phenomenal rise of the Democratic Party due to the image of its de-facto leader, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, may be echoed on July 5.

The track records of individual candidates may be the only other option for voters to base their decisions upon. By looking at candidates' histories, and how they approached problems during their public careers, the voters should be able to map out what kind of leadership the candidates would be capable of, should they be elected.

Here lies a problem: The electorate, with its limited sources of information, may not be too well-versed in the track records of political figures. Additionally, the campaign teams have done a tremendous job in recreating, repackaging, and refurbishing the images of the candidates. These efforts have sometimes blurred the actual track records of the candidates in the eyes of the (not so politically literate) electorate.

The campaigns, thus far, has been conducted in a rather hypocritical manner. On one hand, the candidates have largely attempted to be too positive in their campaigns. By focusing only on their own platforms they do not really help the electorate. No serious sustained attempts have been made to compare and contrast the platforms of the candidates. This is probably due to cultural constraints.

The candidates seem to believe that by appearing too aggressive they will drive voters away, as they will be perceived as power-hungry. Due to the experimental nature of the current presidential election, the candidates are yet to master the technique of comparing and contrasting their platforms -- by remaining civil and still within the Indonesian cultural framework. As a result, the voters do not know what makes one candidate better than another.

On the other hand, this campaign has also been colored by various forms of dirty politics. The issues that should have been brought up in debates surfaced in other forms, such as anonymous short messages, leaflets whose sources are unverifiable, unsolicited faxes or e-mails, doctored compact discs, and paid or arranged demonstrations or other political actions.

The issues hit almost all of the candidates. From accusations of Wiranto's past human rights violations and of the Democratic party's Christian affiliation, to Megawati's gender and her tacit deal with Hamzah Haz, to Amien Rais' intention of creating an Islamic state, and others.

These issues have not been clarified in open political debates, and the candidates have not had the chance to declare their positions openly to the public.

Some candidates tried to diffuse the accusations against them by calling press conferences. However, whether this method was effective is unclear, because not everybody actually knew what the issues were in the first place.

Others tried to pursue legal avenues, although they appeared to back down when they were challenged. Still others ignored the issues altogether, hoping they would pass. Perhaps, most damaging, were attempts not to counter the issue at hand, but to create a new issue (to counter attack the presumed attackers).

As a result, while on the surface the campaign looks civil, restrained, and even a bit boring for the public, beneath the surface the battle has been emotional, fierce, and dirty. If the strategists of the candidates are truly behind this mudslinging, it is unclear what they are trying to achieve. The audience they reached was limited, many more people could have been reached by a comprehensive media campaign, or even mass rallies. The issues raised are sometimes so outrageous that it is difficult to believe that the target of such campaigning -- namely the urban educated middle class -- would find them credible.

Nobody gains from such a hypocritical election backdrop. The voters do not get what they should from formal debates, as no policy alternatives or distinctive platforms are being seriously debated. They do not get the full, credible picture of the candidates' track records, either.

Instead they have been confused by ferocious "underground" campaigning. Nobody gains, everybody loses from this situation. Our political system should be based on open, honest debates. Hopefully, such hypocrisy is not an indication of the future of democracy here.

The writer, who is also the Research Manager of The Habibie Center, can be reached at irman@habibiecenter.or.id