The elections: Substance or babble?

The elections: Substance or babble?

Elwin Tobing, The Indonesian Institute, Jakarta,
elwin@theindonesianinstitute.org

As Indonesia enters the third month of the year, political
parties are busily preparing themselves and extending their best
wishes for the general election set for April. By all accounts,
after the chaotic period that preceded the past elections in
1999, the country deserves to be at peace during this election
campaign.

Although it has been reported that more than 180,000 security
personnel from the military and police, as well as civilian
guards, will take part in providing security during the elections
in the West Java alone, security is still seen at risk. Already
the authorities have warned that Malaysian terror suspect
Azahari, who is though to still be at large here, could launch
more attacks during the general election.

Besides security, there is another important concern that is
fundamentally related to the essence of the elections itself.
That is, will this general election just be business as usual?
Will it be more money politics and no substance? Moreover, will
the political elite view this election just politics as usual?
Can they plot and ploy, and disregard the people's votes?

If we are to be guided by the last general election, the
election of regional executives throughout the years, the
behavior of major political parties and the poor commitment of
the political elite to a clean and ideal election, an election
inspired by substance rather than a quest for power, our concerns
seem to be legitimate.

Less than six weeks away from the elections, the people still
have no idea what the political parties are offering to improve
the nation. The number of participating parties itself has
already made it difficult for people to differentiate between one
party and the next. But even more troubling, how can the people
distinguish one party's ideas and programs from those of another?
The familiar distinguishing indicators are the parties'
ideologies: Nationalism, religion and somewhere in between.

While this ideological-based categorization is important, it
can oversimplify or reduce the things that matter most to the
nation. In reality, ideological differences are only one of
three ultimate challenges to the nation, besides power-sharing
and resource-sharing. Encapsulating these challenges in three
words, they are: Unity, democracy and prosperity.

Unfortunately, we can hardly see any coherent ideas and plans
from the parties in responding to these last two challenges.
Objectively, political parties embracing an exclusive ideology
cause us to doubt their ideas and plans for promoting democracy.

After all, democracy is about inclusion, not exclusion. And
equally doubtful are their ideas and plans about prosperity
because prosperity is about developing together and sharing
resources. In economic terms, it is about equality and a better
standard of living. It is hard to imagine equality springing
from an exclusive view.

That leaves us to wonder about the agendas of the political
parties in promoting democracy and in realizing prosperity. Put
simply, what should the people be exposed to in order to be able
to make a proper judgment about choosing their representatives
and their president? For the elections to be about substance, the
people should be provided with as many opportunities as possible
to learn about the political parties' ideas and programs.

For instance, where do the parties stand and what are their
ideas on (1) revamping the judicial system, (2) combating
corruption, (3) promoting a regionally balanced and more equal
socioeconomic development, (4) reducing poverty, (5) creating
jobs; answering the problem of our unskilled workers who
continually are migrating to neighboring countries only, for
some, to face hard lives; attracting investment; restoring the
banking and financial system, (6) significantly improving our
education system, (7) educating the youth so that these young
people become assets rather than liabilities to the nation's
future, (8) improving the welfare of children and youths so that
we can keep our children away from drugs, sex slavery and
criminal activities, (9) improving the health of the nation and
(10) combating terrorism.

Hardly do we see these things explained clearly and coherently
by the political parties. Instead, they are so keen to talk
about, for instance, combating corruption without a clear sense
or urgency of how to really combat it. Also, some of these
parties state their concern about foreign debt without really
explaining how to improve our economy and create jobs. What we
are really seeing from these parties are "babble platforms".

Don't the political parties realize that elections are all
about ideas, concepts, plans, communication and intellectually
sound strategies? While communication is important, it will be
dangerous if they view it as the single determinant factor in
winning votes.

Perhaps their paradigm is governed by the commonly accepted
but misleading notion that good advertising is key to successful
marketing. But just like everything in life, except for
stupidity, things always have their limits. With good
advertising, one may successfully sell poor quality goods, but
soon people will discover the tricks behind it.

Or, we can fool some people all of the time, but we cannot
fool the same "some people" all of the time. It would be a great
mistake if the political parties bought into the advertising
paradigm and thereby kept promoting "babble platforms" instead of
discussing and promoting substance.

In the U.S., for instance, when Bill Clinton from the
Democratic Party campaigned for the presidency in 1992, he came
up with an ingenuous slogan: "It's the economy, stupid",
capturing the concern of the American people about the economy,
helping him win the election. And George W. Bush in 2000 came
along with his educational reform campaign and won the election.
The bottom line is, each participating party must offer things
that are not only universally accepted, but also the main
challenges to the nation.

But to formulate the challenges, the political parties must
work hard, be realistic and be inclusive. They need more
idealistic and knowledgeably sound individuals to challenge
others and the nation intellectually, not barisan muda to
intimidate others physically. They need to offer the people hope
and the strategies to realize this hope, not rob them of hope.

As the people get smarter, it is time for the major political
parties to switch their focus from babble to substance. Perhaps
six weeks are not enough to discover, define, analyze and sharpen
their platforms, but it is better late than never.