Smoothing out the rough edges of political campaigning

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): President Clinton said in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago that he would not make any personal attacks on his opponent, Republican Bob Dole, during the election campaign. Nor would he allow any of his friends to attack the Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates. He said he would not wage a campaign of personal insults but of ideas.

This is the first time I have heard such a political promise. It sounds like a noble promise, but can it be kept? Will a campaign of ideas be more civil than ordinary political campaigns?

I am skeptical. All political campaigns, no matter how they are carried out, are aimed at attracting public sympathy for one vision and dissuading the public from believing another. To achieve this, one has to talk loftily about oneself or one's own group and argue in a derogatory fashion against rival groups.

This is the general setting of any political campaign, whether it is conducted in the United States, Russia, India or Indonesia. In such a setting I do not think that much can be done to smooth over the rough edges of political campaigning.

Any attempt to make a political campaign less abrasive and more educational should be welcomed. President Clinton's noble promise to stay away from personal insults will of course not make the presidential campaign in America a "smooth and harmonious contest" between two sets of ideas. But perhaps it will help the public balance their beliefs and misbeliefs about the merits and drawbacks of the ideas on offer.

How rude were past election campaigns in Indonesia, and can the next campaign be made more civil and mature? Can it be made less threatening and more appealing?

These questions came into my mind as I read about a recent seminar held in Jakarta to discuss next year's general election.

One speaker, Riswandha Imawan, expressed his hope that the next general election will be more fair, less repressive, more democratic, and more transparent. Juwono Sudarsono said that it will be marked by the voters' dissatisfaction with current conditions. Signs of this, he said, were already visible during the 1987 general election. Gen. Rudini mentioned that the election must be fair and honest if the government wants the public to perceive it as democratic and not a "formality to justify the inveterate rule of the status quo".

According to Rudini, past election proceedings left much to be desired. While the legal mechanism was sufficient, its implementation was marked by suspicious practices.

My personal experience in the general election campaign of 1992 was frightening. What emanated from the campaign was not the desire of each contestant to draw as much public sympathy as possible, but a demonstration of physical power. The message I read from each participant's campaign was "Vote for me, or else!" That was the impression I had on five different occasions in three different cities. The air was always filled with suspicion, intense dislikes and dormant threats.

My experience as a campaigner was an unpleasant one. I have never considered myself to be a politician, let alone a political campaigner. But my job at that time obliged me to act as one. I was clumsy and ineffective, but the most painful part was the shame that I felt within myself. Is this the price that I have to pay for this job? The question tortured me for a long time.

I doubt I was the only campaigner of this type. The campaign was conducted by all kinds, from the fiercest persons to the most docile and ineffective ones. But what gave the campaign its threatening character was not what the campaigners said, but the general atmosphere created by the propaganda machines of each contestant. It was the "silent and informal campaigns" which lasted much longer than the real and formal campaign that created suspicion and distrust among the public.

Is there still hope that the next election campaign can be conducted in a more cordial and less disruptive way? Can a campaign of ideas possibly be conducted in Indonesia?

I have no idea! I sincerely hope so, but I am not very optimistic for several reasons. For one, a cordial campaign can only be conducted if there is no animosity among the various political groupings. Another reason is that a campaign of ideas can only occur when political issues are formulated in terms of verifiable concepts, and not in terms of indisputable doctrines. The third reason is that fair and honest campaigns can be conducted only when voters are allowed to think independently and not coerced to follow given paths of reasoning. Lastly, fair, honest, and transparent campaigns require the majority of voters to possess a high degree of political literacy.

As long as there is animosity among political groupings, as long as solutions are still presented in terms of indisputable doctrines, as long as voters are subjected to subtle coercion and as long as the majority of voters are politically illiterate, a fair, honest and cordial campaign will remain a noble and courageous idea, but not a realistic one.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.