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.