The making of democracy after the elections

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.