Election campaign should clarify where candidates stand on issues
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.