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