Agony of the election: Mulling over political power

Thomas Hidya Tjaya, Jakarta

During this presidential election week voters are, once again, faced with a difficult decision over electing their leaders. For a variety of reasons the decision may be agonizing for many. A large number of people have complained about the lack of strong, charismatic leaders among the candidates. Others find all the candidates' weaknesses too much to bear.

In such circumstances it is no surprise that abstention has become an attractive option. Some prospective voters believe that by not casting their vote they will be blameless and take no responsibility whatsoever if the leaders elected end up ruining the country.

Here we find the agony that voters often find themselves in when it comes to an election. Given the unattractive character of the present candidates, they find it difficult to establish criteria for the vote. When people ask, "Whom will you vote for?", there is usually a lingering anxiety on their part about their own choice.

Some political analysts have suggested that people cast their vote according to their conscience. But the pluses and minuses regarding the suitability of the candidates for leadership often appear to have equal weight. As a result, the decision about the vote is often made on a whim in the polling booth.

Such feelings of anxiety and uncertainty over the vote are fully understandable. People are deeply aware that their individual votes will make a great difference collectively. Once a particular pair of candidates gets elected and the General Elections Commission announces the result of the election, there is no turning back.

Since the candidates are officially elected through a democratic process, people (and the other candidates, too) should accept the result graciously. They may immediately begin to imagine what the country will look like in the upcoming five years under the new leadership.

Different people will raise different questions about the newly elected and their governing style: Are they market- friendly? Are they really going to fight against corruption as they promised in their campaign? Are they serious about improving the quality of life of the poor and eradicating all forms of discrimination in this country? There will be many such questions indeed.

I guess this is one of the greatest worries for voters: What if the country takes a turn for the worse under the new leadership? What if they (deliberately) fail to live up to the good promises they have made, and instead of serving the public interest, seek to promote whatever is to their own personal advantage? Citizens everywhere always worry that the leaders of their country abuse the power they wield. Politicians often unscrupulously do whatever they can do, thinking that they can get away with it.

The recent interview of Bill Clinton by Dan Rather in 60 Minutes reveals precisely this point. Talking about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Clinton admitted, "I did it for the worst possible reason." The reason he was referring to was simply because he could do it: "Just because I could. I think that's just about the most morally indefensible reason anybody could have for doing anything." Here the distinction between what one can do and what one should do becomes crucial.

The fact that one can commit a particular deed does not entitle one to do it. Clinton acknowledges that that was the worst possible reason for doing anything. When the line of demarcation between our capacity for doing something and the necessity for doing so gets blurred, what we often end up making is a big mistake. This danger is particularly apparent among politicians, as they often do things using their political power, thinking that nobody is going to stop them and that they will get away with it.

This brings to mind the conversation between Socrates and his friends in Plato's famous book, the Republic. One of Socrates' interlocutors, Glaucon, tries to convince his friends that the will to do justice voluntarily is very difficult to come by. Using a myth that recounts the power of a certain ring to make a person wearing it invisible, he observes that no one, in possession of such a ring, would be "so incorruptible that he would stay on the path of justice or stay away from other people's property, when he could take whatever he wanted from the marketplace with impunity."

His conclusion is hard to swallow, though it sounds true: "One is never just, willingly, but only when compelled to be. No one believes justice to be a good when it is kept private, since, wherever a person thinks he can do injustice with impunity, he does it." While not everybody will agree with his thought, this observation may at least serve as a warning that each of us, including politicians, may do things, not out of necessity but rather simply because we can. Those who wield power tend to succumb to such a temptation, thinking that the very power will shield them from taking responsibility for the action.

If this is the case, what can we do, in particular in the context of the election under way? There are at least two relevant points worth making here.

First, we may hope that the newly elected leaders will keep the promises they have made. We may have to rely on their moral integrity to serve the people of this country sincerely.

Second, since power tends to corrupt, even at the expense of the future of this country, we should make an extra effort to ensure that the system of checks and balances on the new government's power works.

A variety of political institutions and the media should be encouraged to play a more active part in combating the abuse of power. The election is just the beginning of another political journey for the country. It would be best, therefore, to stay alert from the outset to things that may ruin all of us as a nation.

The writer is a lecturer at the Driyarkara School of Philosophy in Jakarta and a Fordham University graduate.