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.