Fair scrutiny necessary for informed choice

Fair scrutiny necessary for informed choice

Anton Doni, Jakarta

In just two days time, Indonesians will vote in the nation's
first direct presidential election.
No less than 150 million voters are expected to attend polling
stations in a show of support for either the incumbent, President
Megawati Soekarnoputri or her former chief security minister Gen.
(ret.) Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. The new president will lead the
country until 2009.

The quality of our analysis of the candidates seems to have
progressed significantly. Remarkably, the sensitive issue of
candidates' flaws is now discussed openly.

Voters are more engaged in the election process and more
interested in the qualities of the candidates. While one of the
choices is the incumbent -- who as vice president replaced
Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid in July 2001 -- the leadership
capacity and platforms of both are scrutinized in depth.

But, this focus and openness must be accompanied by other
attributes, such as fairness and honesty, particularly when
claims are made without the provision of supporting material, or
when different value systems operate within our society.

Our discourse should increasingly be a truthful one, where
claims are backed by solid facts. This would allow others,
including a candidate's opponent, the public and other observers,
to work with the facts and test the validity of the claims made.

The current public discourse on the candidates strays from the
truth on too many occasions. The following issues may assist us
in making a fair decision:

First, an issue related to pluralism that currently works
against Susilo. Many people raised their eyebrows when the
Crescent Star Party (PBB), a party which openly campaigns for the
implementation of sharia, joined his camp. Later, the progressive
Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) also supported Susilo after their
candidate Amien Rais was eliminated in the April 5 election. His
running mate, Jusuf Kalla, is rumored to be antiChristian and
antiChinese. Based on this, one wonders whether Susilo's
character is really that strong.

Megawati's pluralistic stance is widely recognized. The
inclusion of the Prosperous Peace Party (PDS) in her coalition,
however, may be perceived by many as too pro-Christian.

The second issue is militarism. It is claimed by many that the
victory of Susilo would return power to the military. While it is
not a serious issue for ordinary people, it should have been
clarified that a former military man would not necessarily lead
in a militaristic manner. While some military traits may be
useful elements of leadership, this style of leadership is not
applicable to the current democracy. If it was applicable, there
would be something wrong with our democratic system.

Megawati is a civilian, but can we conclude that she really
acted as a model civilian leader during her three-year tenure?

Third, is related to the speculation that many senior military
personnel are "surrounding" Susilo. It is quite problematic to
say that they are worse than corrupt civilian politicians. It is
unclear who they are, whether they are really bad advisors, and
whether Susilo is, in fact, inferior to them.

Megawati is often described as being too easily swayed by the
military.

Another quality to be improved upon in facilitating the kind
of discourse that is desperately needed in this election season
is fairness, particularly when dealing with different societal
values.
Here, the values of different groups and individuals must be
considered to achieve equality.

Suppose one person values a certain cause above all others, it
is vital that they realize that others may not share the same
values. This is because, in hard times, most people prioritize
their basic needs, and are unable to think beyond the very real
issue of putting food on the table.

Another issue related to fairness is the support for pribumi
(native Indonesians) in the economic field that would be
exercised by the Susilo-Kalla team in the form of a series of
"affirmative actions" on their election.

It is understandable that this idea, particularly promoted by
Kalla, is strongly rejected by many Chinese-Indonesians. It could
be interpreted as discriminative and does not suit their sense of
justice. Most Chinese-Indonesians here have struggled very hard
for economic success, even when their political participation was
severely limited. So, any idea that is primordial in nature
should basically be rejected.

But the rejection of such an idea should be balanced with
another understanding: that there are many citizens crying out
for better economic conditions -- either for business, or just
for better living. They may lack many things, including
education, a network, discipline, skills or capital.

So the use of the pribumi concept may be unfair, but another
solution should be offered. In that sense, the marketability of a
leader who has the drive to bridge the gap between the advanced
and the underdeveloped is understandable.

Supporters of Susilo may say, "If you want change (for better
or worse), Susilo is the choice". But, Megawati's supporters will
reply, "She has proven her track record, while her opponent can
only make promises."

Elections are a time to build our capacity to make quality
decisions based on accurate information. Because, during
elections, ordinary people are given the privilege of having
their say.

The writer is head of The Jakarta Post's Research and
Development Unit.