'Direct' elections a casting of collective votes

Thomas Hidya Tjaya, Jakarta

A general election is considered an essential part of the process toward democracy, whereby the people select their leaders by vote. They may have different reasons for choosing one candidate over another, but, in such an enterprise, the freedom of every citizen to make a selection is guaranteed, and respected. Thus, while we may ask around, even argue with others over their preference, it is their choice and not ours.

In this country, however, in anticipation of the presidential election, a rather different type of discourse is underway. We have heard, more loudly recently, leaders of political parties make public statements on which pair their party will back.

Seven political parties, for instance, have thrown their support behind Amien Rais-Siswono Yudohusodo. The latest event in this trend was the coalition agreement signed by the Golkar Party and the National Awakening Party (PKB) in support of Wiranto-Solahuddin Wahid.

Another version of this institutional backing is the declarations of leaders of social and religious organizations, that their organization will "direct its votes" to a certain pair. Not unlike our virtually obsolete democracy of pancasila, we now seem to have another peculiar way of practicing democracy, by ensuring collective votes for particular candidates rather than allowing individuals to vote individually.

What is implied by a leader's claim that their party or organization will direct its votes to a certain pair? Do they speak for themselves, or on behalf of all members of the organization? Do they seriously think that having a common interest is enough to ensure a common vote? Moreover, will the individuals that comprise an organization actually vote for the candidates endorsed, on election day?

There are good reasons to believe that this is so:

First, members of a party or organization usually endorse the objectives and values proposed and presented by that institution. Joining an association, for many, is an act of identifying with a group. Therefore, it is more than likely that members of an organization will follow the directives of their leaders on who to vote for.

Second, choosing the right candidate can be confusing. It may be that no candidate meets an individual voter's criteria. In such a situation they may revert to the choice of their party's leadership. This option would certainly relieve them from the burden of choice.

Nevertheless, it is possible that voters have made their own, individual assessments of the candidates. The ultimate consequence being that they refrain from voting for the suggested candidate.

There would be several reasons for this move:

First, the Golkar party has two prominent figures among the candidates, namely, Wiranto paired with Solahuddin Wahid and Jusuf Kalla, a vice presidential candidate, paired with Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Even though the party has officially nominated Wiranto, Jusuf Kalla may be able to attract a substantial number of Golkar votes.

Second, political overtones are apparent in the endorsement decisions. Thus, party leaders do not necessarily endorse candidates whose characters and personal qualities fit the raison d'etre of the party, including the ideals and expectations of its members. When people find the endorsed candidates disagreeable, it is logical that they will have second thoughts on whom to vote for.

Third, (and related to the second point), in the presidential election, voters must select a pair. While a party may have its own candidate, that candidate's running mate may pose a problem when it comes to the final decision, regarding their past actions, personal qualities, or credibility. To party members, the endorsement of an unsuitable candidate may cause confusion as to what the party is really up to.

All this culminates in the issue of picking a running mate. It is perceived by many that the decision is often a pragmatic one, for instance, to attract voters from another big party. The suitability of the running mate, or whether they meet the aspirations of party members, could be considered secondary.

As a result, party members feel betrayed by their leaders, who did not consider their aspirations, the ideology of the party, or the backgrounds and qualities of the candidates.

Moreover, the party's platform and that of the running mate -- if any -- may be incompatible. Thus, forging such a partnership can impact on the general direction of the party itself, and its hopes.

There are other factors that will drive voters to select a particular pair. Some will vote for a pair with the clearest agenda, or for the candidates considered most capable of promoting democracy and bringing economic recovery to the country.

With better educated and increasingly critical voters, party leaders cannot automatically assume that their members will abide by an endorsement decision.

What becomes increasingly clear in the various moves made by politicians as the country gears up for the election on July 5, is the pragmatic considerations behind them. The necessity of partnership in the election has yielded several awkward, if not essentially incompatible, pairs of candidates.

The coalition agreement and party endorsements of candidates may have caused prospective voters confusion. Will people buy political moves that are directed by pragmatic considerations? Will parties manage to "vote collectively"? Or, will sharp divisions among organizations cause votes to be scattered? The July 5 election holds the answers.

The writer is a lecturer at Driyarkara School of Philosophy in Jakarta.