Election campaign should clarify where candidates stand on issues

Lin Che Wei, Jakarta

The presidential election has become something of a popularity contest, however, a candidate should be elected based on their judgment, integrity, character and intelligence. Voters should consider the candidates' platforms, including their policies on the economy, budgetary spending, the management of state affairs and the quality of possible cabinet members. Thus, the better candidate would be elected and the economy would grow.

If votes are randomly cast or based on the irrational whims of political leaders, then the election will result in a sub-optimum leader.

The public has the right to adequate information on the candidates. More importantly, the people should have the opportunity to compare them. I was invited many times, in my capacity as an economist, to sit on the panel that assessed the five presidential candidates and their running mates in the first round of the election. For a presidential election to educate voters, two conditions must be met: First, the voters must have an opinion on the issue that is being debated. Second, the voter should be able to see a marked difference between the candidates' policies and principles.

In previous election debates, the candidates did not sit on opposite sides of the fence. Moreover, the issues that were discussed were ones that the average voter has no specific opinion on. For instance, the candidates discussed privatization and the role of state enterprises, which, for many voters, is not of particular interest. Hence, discussing privatization would not make the average voter more able to make an informed choice.

Also, many candidates avoid direct comparison with other candidates. In the upcoming election, the incumbent, President Megawati seems rather reluctant to engage in a direct debate, while her challenger, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, is more willing.

The biggest problem of the electoral process is the difficulty of assessing the election program by an independent panel. Theoretically, the results of debates should be assessed and published before the election takes place. It is also important that independent panels verify election promises. For example, Megawati's camp often claims she has achieved a very low inflation rate. However, they neglect to mention that this is a reflection of global inflation figures. In fact, Indonesia has one of the highest inflation rates in Asia.

Likewise, nobody has verified the validity of Susilo's economic growth projection, nor whether it is consistent with projected figures for the reduction of unemployment.

It is important that voters be protected against any presidential candidate that tries to win the election by making popular but unfounded financial promises. Only by providing a real debate can we improve the electoral process.

Candidates talk of introducing policies that seem to have no downside, or cost nothing. In my experience, candidates easily promise to improve a sector, with popular sectors, such as education and health, topping their lists. It was amused to ask the candidates as to which sector they would allocate less funds, to compensate for increased spending in other sectors. Most candidates could not give a satisfactory answer to this simple question. This highlights the fact that the candidates' platforms do not really make sense.

To increase the quality of our democracy it is important that the General Elections Committee (KPU) facilitate proper debates ahead of elections.

It is important that the KPU helps voters separate economic arguments from political preferences. Voters deserve to know the economic consequences of the candidates' platforms.

Many people claim that the average person is not very interested in the economy as it is an "elite" field. Thus, they say, a direct debate between candidates is not necessary. These claims are not true.

I believe that the voters are more intelligent than this, even villagers in remote areas deserve to know their leader better. It is the duty of an election candidate to speak in a manner that is understood by the majority of people. To prevent the voter knowing their potential leader is tantamount to stealing their democratic rights. I hope the KPU can raise the standard of our democracy by facilitating a direct debate between candidates.

The writer is the director of the Independent Research & Advisory Board. On several occasions he was invited to be a panelist for presidential election debates.