The making of democracy after the elections

Thomas Hidya Tjaya Boston, Massachusetts

The second round of our first direct presidential elections has concluded smoothly and peacefully. While the official results are yet to be announced, there is very little doubt that Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Jusuf Kalla will emerge as the winning pair.

The smooth process of this phase of the election, together with the previous two, has indeed brought hope to many people, both Indonesians and foreigners alike. The renewed excitement is justifiable, given the latest bombing just a few weeks earlier that shattered the relative peace and stability in the country.

The stock market has responded positively to the preliminary results of the elections and with a great hope that the new government would implement policies to help boost the economy.

There is no question that the peaceful elections also provide good signs for the future of Indonesia's democracy. As an essential element in a democratic system, the peaceful elections are undeniable proof that the country is capable of becoming a great democratic nation that can protect and uphold the rights of its citizens. The electoral system and its effective operational process will surely help the country shape its socio-political scene over the years.

No less important than the democratic system is the president- elect. The recent shift to a direct presidential election is indicative of the trust given to the people to elect their own leaders through individual votes.

This means that voters have more voice in deciding who should become the leader of their country. They should consider, for instance, whether presidential candidates possess the qualities of a democratic leader. In many respects, voters need to have a certain degree of trust in the abilities of candidates to fulfill their hopes and aspirations for them to select one.

As we may know from the history of many elections, there are hundreds of reasons to vote for a particular candidate. Voters do not necessarily go to the polling booths knowing with absolute certainty for whom they will cast their votes. Even more difficult is finding the right reason to vote for one candidate over others.

The available candidates may not always reflect the hopes of voters, and the pros and cons of the candidates' qualities are abundant. That we dislike the stance of a particular candidate on certain issues may not necessarily lead us to cast a vote for the other candidate -- because we may dislike their stance on other issues or feel unsure of their leadership skills.

Take, for example, the two candidates in the upcoming U.S. presidential election: George W. Bush and John Kerry. They have discussed and criticized each other's stance on many different issues, such as the war in Iraq and their military service records. An issue that has played an important role in Bush's campaign is that of security.

In his speeches, Bush keeps referring to his excellent leadership, particularly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, and paints a portrait of himself as a leader that provides security to the citizens of his country. A good number of voters may be highly likely to buy into the issue and vote for him in November.

Whether or not this particular style of leadership is conducive to the making of democracy may be considered secondary in this case. Other voters, however, may disagree with him substantially on certain issues, for instance, his foreign policies or his so-called conservative values. They may find Bush to be acting against the rest of the world and sowing the seeds of enmity toward the U.S. in other countries.

Granted this opposition, however, these voters may not necessarily find themselves ready to vote for Kerry, either. Some may doubt his leadership skills, others may be yet to see the real Kerry as an individual and a leader during the remainder of the campaign period.

To put it simply, we do not always have good and qualified presidential candidates, and there is always a gray area in which doubt arises about the right choice.

Given such circumstances, therefore, it is important to make a distinction between winning an election and possessing the qualities and skills necessary to be a democratic leader. Winning an election does not always mean the candidate possessed the required qualities and skills for the job, because these two issues do not necessarily coincide.

There are many reasons for voters to pick one candidate over another, and this should warn us against making a hasty judgment about the personal qualities of the winner. Let us take an example at home and assume that Susilo and Kalla win.

Many people have expressed their hopes that a new president and vice president may bring about a more rapid and positive change in the country. In some ways, these voters may have been disappointed with the slow pace of change under the Megawati government.

The hypothetical victory of Susilo and Kalla, however, does not necessarily suggest that voters saw in them the qualities and skills required for a democratic nation. Some people may have cast their votes for Susilo and Kalla simply because they wanted change, although they might not have known the new government's policies nor whether the overall social, political and economic conditions would be improved.

Thus, it is important for the winner of the election to exercise a certain degree of humility in accepting their victory.

While a victory does not prove a candidate's aptness for the position, on the other hand, it suggests the deep-seated hopes and aspirations of the ordinary people for a qualitatively better life. Voters have held out expectations that the candidates' campaign promises are fulfilled and that the new government makes every effort to provide better living conditions for all.

Winning an election as part of the democratization process means the reception of a new responsibility for the country and marks an beginning to a new era that strives for the continued development of democracy. We all want to see that the next government is established not only from and by the people, but also for the people.

The writer is a lecturer at the Driyarkara School of Philosophy in Jakarta. He is currently pursuing a doctorate in philosophy at Boston College, Massachusetts.