Smoothing out the rough edges of political campaigning

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.