Dichotomies of presidential campaign

Dichotomies of presidential campaign

One week has passed since the kickoff of the campaign period,
during which the presidential candidates will be using various
strategies to win the hearts of the people.

Some candidates have visited traditional markets, others have
gathered their supporters, others have made promises on
television and in newspapers, and still others have played soccer
with villagers.

A symbolic campaign is no less powerful than a campaign of
rhetoric from the mouths of candidates and their campaign teams.

In regards a rhetorical campaign, the frequently asked
question is: To what extent can such a campaign stimulate the
people's intelligence into choosing that candidate?

We are entering a crucial moment in the history of our
democracy, in which the people will elect a president directly
for the first time.

Our hope is that the campaigns for this historic election
would be different from those for the general elections of the
past; but in actuality, there have been no significant changes.

Most candidates only make empty promises in their campaigns:
They promise to uphold the law, create jobs, raise the standard
of living for all and 1,001 other such promises, but neglect to
describe in detail how they intend to realize these promises.

It seems that the candidates, during the first week of the
campaign, tended to exploit the dichotomies between the military
and civilian, the New Order and the new democracy, and
conservativism and reform, as well as the dichotomy of gender
equality.

A direct presidential election is a matter of democracy, which
is based on universal emancipation -- whether weak or powerful,
civilian or military, woman or man.

We are at the crossroads of Indonesia's democracy, where our
mouths speak of progress but our feet step backward. And while
other nations speak about their agenda for the future, we
continue to cling to the same agenda of our past.
-- Media Indonesia, Jakarta