The symbolic faces of our election campaign

Thomas Hidya Tjaya, Lecturer, Driyarkara School of Philosophy, Jakarta

Campaigns have become daily occurrences as part of the social reality we live in. We often hear about campaigns for HIV/AIDS awareness or for humanitarian and environmental causes. By definition, a campaign is a series of planned activities with a particular social, commercial or political aim. They are usually meant to introduce new ideas or realities and bring them to people's awareness.

Through these activities, campaigners generally ask for support from people for their causes. This would suppose that the causes of the campaigners or what they are fighting for are relatively clear to prospective supporters. Otherwise, it would be hard to get people's attention, not to mention their support.

Campaigns prior to a general election for political leaders, too, aim at getting prospective voters to pay attention to the candidates' vision and agenda. In these activities the campaigners are supposed to provide information regarding their party and its representatives, and more importantly, to show good reasons why people should vote for this particular party or candidate and not others. They should convince the voters that the future of the country lies in the implementation of their programs.

Since the beginning of the campaign period last week, we have seen various signs and symbols of election contestants placed in every corner of our streets: banners, stickers, posters, pamphlets, flags, T-shirts, all featuring party symbols and pictures of candidates.

They are everywhere and people enjoy the instant euphoria of putting on or waving these symbols during their rallies. With the striking colors in which most party symbols are made, most Indonesian cities now suddenly look colorful. T-shirts featuring party symbols are distributed freely to win voters' hearts.

While the existence of these symbols may purport to get people's attention, support and, ultimately, their votes on election day, I think we need to worry about what is really missing in this way of running a campaign.

How many people know the programs of the election contestants, either individual candidates or parties? Surveys and polls have suggested a very low percentage of prospective voters know the parties' agendas. Supporters seem to be drowning in championing their parties through their symbols at the expense of clearly articulated political programs and agendas for the reform of the country.

The heavy emphasis placed on the symbols has been exacerbated by campaign commercials that seek to win instant votes from people. A lot of campaign ads, both in public places and in the mass media, contain only an invitation to punch a particular party symbol on the election ballot.

The ranking number of legislative candidates is printed large so that it may quickly stick in the memory of prospective voters. Whether or not the voters know the programs and aspirations of the party or the candidate is deemed secondary. All this indeed looks like a shortcut to getting votes on election day.

This way of running campaigns is quite misleading, for it gives the impression that democratic principles consist only in casting a vote. There is no question that voting for a particular candidate is an expression of citizens' freedom to elect their own leaders.

Nevertheless, casting a vote without knowing what the candidate and the party he or she represents are up to would be political suicide. No citizen should write a blank check to unknown politicians.

Thus, we should see more substantial elements of democracy embraced in this country. Campaigns should focus more on content, namely, political programs and party agendas, rather on form, namely, the symbols displayed everywhere. Those symbols are supposed to summarize the content of the programs, not replace it.

For instance, we should see more debates among the candidates on TV. Let them discuss and bring to people's awareness the many different issues that urgently need to be addressed in our country, such as corruption, unemployment, poverty, education, environment and health care. Let the viewers decide which candidate has more convincing arguments and displays more ingenuity and competence.

Of course, party candidates and their campaigners may give bad speeches and empty promises to their viewers or listeners. People usually call these kecap (soy sauce), which suggests both (insubstantial) additive and lies. This has become part of the ordeal that voters around the world have to deal with when it comes to election campaigns.

Yet, there is no alternative if we really want to establish a government elected by its own people. We just need to be cautious and discern what the politicians promise.

In the meantime, the prevalence of symbols over political programs in our election campaigns suggests to us at least two things. First, many political parties and their leaders are themselves not clear about their own political programs. They do not have clear visions, or haven't really formulated them yet. Or they do not know how to tell people about their programs since their own credibility has been damaged by past conduct. That is why they resort to symbols, hoping that people will not ask much about what they will do when elected.

Second, talking about political programs for the country, or more generally, speaking about the content of campaigns, requires adequate knowledge about what this country really needs for its reform and development. Likewise, public debates demands rhetorical skills on the part of the candidates, which are desperately lacking.

Moreover, such rational discourse would call for a better educated audience. In short, we need to improve general education in this country if we are to make progress in implementing the democratic ideals.

There is certainly much to be done in this country, including the way we run election campaigns. The ubiquity of party symbols and candidates' pictures may belie our ignorance and present inadequacy in implementing the democratic ideals. This manifestly suggests the urgent need for political education in this country.