Gone are the deafening rallies and endlessly frustrating traffic jams that came with the mass gatherings organized by the various supporters of Jakarta's gubernatorial candidates.
It was quite a happy ending to the two weeks of vociferous election campaigning -- Jakartans saw gubernatorial aspirant Fauzi Bowo and his running mate Prijanto meet face to face with contender Adang Daradjatun and his running mate Dani Anwar in a public debate aired live Saturday night on Metro TV and Jak TV.
Both candidates deserve commendation not only for appearing publicly and enduring direct public screening, but for showing their commitment to fair play.
It will be a positive move if the head-to-head encounter showcasing rival candidates is adopted as a model for regional elections across the country.
Regardless of the content and the course of the debate, Jakartans must realize for democracy's sake the benefits of a public debate, compared to pointless mass rallies.
The week's traffic jams and vehicle violations were only worsened by clashes between rival supporters.
Mass rallies are an old-fashioned method of campaigning -- a method which, for various reasons, has unfortunately continued to thrive.
Thank God the recently concluded campaign period was violence-free -- because it very potentially may not have been.
Most would agree a street rally has no educational purpose.
At a time when law enforcement remains a major cause for concern, we often see traffic police hopelessly allowing daredevil rally attendants to ignore road and safety rules as they drive their vehicles or take part in a march.
This type of ignorance sees minors, even babies, who are supposed to receive protection and care, completely ignored.
If during the campaigning an accident had occurred, we would have seen rally organizers quickly wash their hands of any responsibility.
How can we boast a provision of political education for Jakarta's residents, when those taking part in such mass rallies have no clear comprehension of the candidates they are supporting?
Many join the rallies for fun, or for the T-shirts provided -- while others join in perhaps for the money.
A mass rally is a vehicle for aspirants to show their force.
The more people that turn up for the rally, the more the candidates believe they have won voters' hearts and minds.
Ironically, the media tends to give huge election rallies much attention.
""Jakarta turns into a sea of red,"" said the front page headline of a local daily describing how supporters of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle packed Jakarta's thoroughfares in the 2004 election.
The final rally Friday for the Jakarta election saw a news portal write, ""Adang and Fauzi keep up with each other in deploying masses"".
But it is the public debate that provides an opportunity for candidates vying for an executive post to win trust and improve their popularity.
More importantly, an open debate allows the public to assess a candidate's competence and commitment to their campaign platform.
In short, a public debate encourages the public to use their common sense to vote -- a common sense this nation is still lacking.
The majority of our voters tend to be easily swayed by a candidate's appearance, rather than their ideological platform.
The debate on Saturday was encouraging, but it did not live up to public's expectation.
There were some flaws in the organization of the program -- of particular note was the absence of any real debate between candidates.
The rules of the game restricted candidates from criticizing each other or trading arguments -- though this was potentially due to Indonesia's culture of incredible politeness.
In addition, the five panelists were provided no opportunity to follow up topics covered -- and some of them wasted their limited time by raising cliched questions.
It was also apparent the gubernatorial candidates were not really working as a team with their running mates.
Sadly, these issues could have been addressed had the organizers allowed more time for the program.
Nevertheless, these shortcomings did not undermine the overall aim of the debate, which was to enable the candidates to market their wares to an excited, expectant audience.
The biggest disappointment was that the Jakarta Election Commission arranged just one public debate during the two-week-long campaign.
Jakarta's citizens, many of them well educated, need to know more about the candidates.
An hour of debate was insufficient and provided no opportunity to compare the candidates -- apple to apple.
This election will see Jakartans elect their leaders directly for the first time -- which alone should have prompted the poll body to hold as many debates as possible.
More debates and more public screening would have absolutely assured Jakartans an opportunity to elect the best candidate for the job.
