What dialogs are for

If anything good has come out of the political dialogs that have characterized this year's campaign it is this: we know this country has a dearth of truly great politicians to represent the people for the next five years. Whether at indoor meetings or on television, most of these dialogs have been flat, which to a large extent is a reflection on the quality of the candidates for the House of Representatives.

The dialogs are the preferred official campaigning method, not only because they are seen as a more effective means of political communication and education, but also because the alternative, open-air rallies, have the potential to turn rowdy and disruptive.

The term dialog, as opposed to monolog, suggests a two-way communication, and when applied to election campaigns, this means communication between aspiring politicians and voters. With very few exceptions, these dialogs were given the thumbs down by the public. We know many people attended them only because they were paid or told to do so, and many of them preferred to sit outside or to take part in convoys roaming the streets instead. The nightly televised dialogs have not proved any better. They have been poorly organized and the tight restrictions have prevented the interaction from flowing freely.

It's easy to blame the election system with its tight campaign rules for such a lackluster campaign, but the success of dialogs eventually depends on the people involved, in this case the politicians running for office. It is their job to turn these dialogs into lively and meaningful discussions with voters.

Some people did shine -- they were able to move the crowd and lead free-flowing discussions -- but they were just speakers, or "vote getters", who will not take up seats in the House of Representatives. Besides, they were the exceptions. The majority of the candidates failed to impress. This is true for Golkar, the United Development Party (PPP) and the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) alike.

The campaign period is a time, perhaps the only time, for politicians and political-wanna-bes to test their communicative skills before the public. In a tightly regulated floating-mass political system, this is the only opportunity in five years to touch base with the masses, to capture the aspirations of the people, to articulate their desires, and to fight on the people's behalf if they get elected into the House of Representatives. The campaign dialogs were just the forum for that. It is sad to think that this rare opportunity went begging.

To all intents and purposes, dialogs should be retained in future election campaigns because they are the most effective method for political communication and education, and therefore for democracy. It is encouraging to note that some government officials are now willing to endorse debates, something which Golkar rejected but the other two parties supported when the idea of promoting the dialogs was initially raised.

But to make future campaign dialogs a more effective and meaningful political communication and education process, the entire electoral system must be reviewed.

The present proportional representation system means that people vote for the one of the three parties, and not for their own representatives. This system means that elected politicians owe their allegiance more to the party than to voters. Such a system does not make dialogs with the masses a priority for candidates. The tight restrictions imposed on dialogs must also be removed to allow freer discussions.

In the meantime, it looks like we will have to contend with untested second-rate politicians to represent us for the next five years. That is hardly comforting as we move into the 21st century, but we are stuck with them because the system says so.