Finding the best way to choose our leaders freely

Finding the best way to choose our leaders freely

Thomas Hidya Tjaya, Jakarta

In his comment on my article Gus Dur and the KPU (The Jakarta
Post, May 11), John Hargreaves brings up two well-taken points
regarding principles of democracy. He first suggests that
supporting the law preventing a blind person from being a
president, based on the necessity of eyesight for the office,
runs against the democratic principle of freely choosing one's
own leaders.

In his opinion, "barring Abdurrahman 'Gus Dur' Wahid not only
denies blind people the right to stand for the presidency but
also voters the right to choose their leaders freely." He then
shows how impervious Indonesia's state institutions are to the
voices of the poor and the marginalized. One fleeting moment on
election day is the only time when everybody, both the rulers and
the ruled, are equal.

John rightly points out the lingering complexity of Indonesian
politics, including in matters of legislation. He suspects that
the very law on presidential elections may have been designed not
only to exclude blind candidates, but also to "nobble their
rivals before they even get to the start line."

As a result, a small party such as the National Awakening
Party (PKB) was shut out.

With his "hermeneutics of suspicion" he expresses doubt
regarding the true motive of lawmakers in issuing the
stipulation. The ruling from the General Elections Commission
(KPU) may appear to allow only healthy presidential and vice
presidential candidates to run in the election and yet, the true
motive is rather to block out seemingly more desirable
candidates.

That is not to deny the possible presence of such a motive,
and that may very well be the case with the stipulation -- much
to our regret. We know too well that many political decisions are
made based on personal and limited interests, and, therefore, it
is important to raise questions concerning political motives.

Nevertheless, we must realize that a motive does not stand
alone, but rather is essentially linked to an idea, which may
turn into a decision, or an action. On the one hand, one cannot
judge a motive alone without looking into the decision or action
itself. Government critics, as well as lawmakers, would go first
into the "material" of any political decision and judge the
motive later.

On the other hand, the presence of an ulterior motive behind a
decision or action may significantly alter the way we look at the
whole situation. A planned murder and an accidental killing, as
proven in the court, may incur different degrees of punishment.
In other words, we should first analyze the relevant decision or
action, and then raise the question of the motive behind it, and
not the other way around.

As far as the KPU's ruling (or decision) regarding health
requirements is concerned, there are two fundamental questions
for us to ponder. The first question entails the right of the KPU
to issue the health requirement in decree No. 26/2004. Some
people have argued that the commission has been given only the
authority to facilitate the election process and not to rule who
is eligible or ineligible to run for the presidency.

However, the majority accept the right without question and
take it for granted. This question is fundamental, as it becomes
the basis for raising the second question, namely, whether the
content of the health requirement is essentially discriminatory.
The whole argumentation concerning the stipulation would lose its
force if it turned out that the ruling had no legal basis.

Granted that the ruling is legitimate, I have argued that it
is not in itself discriminatory because it is based on a relevant
difference, namely, the issue of competence. This is not to say
that the KPU has been completely consistent with all its
stipulations.

As Saldi Isra points out in his article (Kompas, May 11), the
commission is yet to explain why it fails to elaborate other
requirements for presidential and vice presidential candidates,
for instance, that they never betray this country or violate the
1945 Constitution. However, for many people, the requirements for
physical and mental health appear commonsensical.

It is true that democracy is a system in which the people
choose their leaders freely; but we know that freedom is never
absolute, but rather always situated in a particular social and
historical context. More specifically, we do not express the
freedom to choose our leaders in a vacuum, but rather through
state institutions, including the KPU.

These institutions are pillars of democracy, which we have yet
learnt to respect. Even though they have made plenty of mistakes
-- for which they should take responsibility -- and issued
controversial rulings, we cannot get rid of them without at the
same time losing the essential elements of democracy.

In bringing up the democratic principle that the people should
elect their leaders freely, John seems to suggest that the ruling
on health requirements is unnecessary. Let the people choose
their own leaders regardless of the health conditions of the
candidates. This is one option for the KPU to take. Although, if
the commission does issue a ruling on that matter -- which is the
case we have now -- we may then either ask its members to
withdraw the requirement because it is unnecessary, or raise the
two questions mentioned above, namely: regarding the right of the
commission to do so, and the content of its ruling.

In any case, we cannot totally disregard an officially
appointed body for the elections such as the KPU, unless we
consider its very existence illegitimate. Some of its ruling may
be controversial and "fishy," but precisely because we want to
live out the democratic principles, we must critically question
and challenge such decisions if found unjustifiable.

It is true that most of the time the political leaders in this
country do not listen to the voice of the people, especially that
of the poor and the marginalized. However, the solution to this
lingering problem should not be a total disregard of what
politicians say and do, or a recourse to some sort of "violence,"
because their political decisions will eventually have great
impact upon all of us anyway.

We should rather elect only morally good people for the
offices, while at the same time helping to establish strong
governmental structures, for instance, with constructive
criticism and moral pressure.

Living out democratic principles essentially involves making
contributions to society in our own way, and expressing our
freedom through the proper channels. All this can indeed comprise
a long road to democracy; but at least we may continue to tread
the path with moral integrity, a big heart, and, a no less
important element, a cool head.

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