Change we should believe in?

Togi Pangaribuan ,  Jakarta   |  Tue, 02/17/2009 1:43 PM  |  Opinion

The United States' National Debt Clock was first installed in 1989 in New York City. One of the purposes of the clock was to serve as a symbol and metaphor for the American people, it reminds them that they are in debt. In addition to showing the current amount of the national debt, the clock also estimates the share of each American family in that debt. Back then, the United States' national public debt was a little under US$3 trillion.

The clock received a significant amount of public attention at the end of last year. Due to the financial crisis, more digits need to be added to the debt clock. The United States was in debt for over US$10 trillion and the Durst Organization, which is in charge of the clock, plans to add two more digits to the clock in 2009.

The clock and its digits (or lack thereof) are one of the more "entertaining" highlights of the financial crisis and to a further extent, the failure of Bush's presidency.

After the hype of the US presidential election, it is now Indonesia's turn.The elections are coming. Legislative elections will be held in April followed by the first round of the presidential elections in July and the second round in September. As is the case with elections, political parties are gearing up and claiming that they have the credibility and competence to put their people in the legislature and, provided that they have enough political leverage, to put forward or to form a coalition with another political party to nominate a president and vice presidential candidate.

The Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle chairwoman Megawati Sukarnoputri, accused the incumbent government of "yo-yoing" people, putting their lives on a roller coaster with layer upon layer of policies unfavorable to the people. Previously, the former president said the government's policies were similar to poco-poco dancing, taking one step forward and another one backward, basically staying put and showing no progress.

Megawati's message is more or less this: "The current government is no good for you and I can make things better therefore vote me for President."

Is the current government really that bad for Indonesians? Newsweek (Oct. 20, 2008) reported that four years ago our government's debt was 54 percent of the GDP, now it is 33 percent. We also repaid our debt to the International Monetary Fund four years ahead of schedule. The budget for eradicating poverty is increasing by the year; corruption is slowly but surely being eradicated.

Of course the current government has its significant share of shortcomings; the one that disturbs many people the most is that at the start of his presidency, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) advised his ministers and officials to avoid personal business interests and conflict of interests.

Inconsistency to that advice is arguably apparent in the family business of President SBY's Coordinating Minister for People's Welfare Aburizal Bakrie. But, SBY's presidency has brought stability, peace in Aceh and he has taken calculated and well-thought-of decisions.

I am neither an economist nor a member of any political party, and this article is not meant to denigrate the current government's achievements. This is also not an advertisement for the current government; perpetual images of presidential hopefuls in television commercials bother many of us.

Many of our presidential aspirants in their campaigns describe themselves as the only person who can bring us a better life. But, as George Orwell implied in his book, people tend to become what they criticize. Therefore, we, the people, need to be more careful, more attentive to promises and ask whether those promises are indeed feasible. Put a presidential hopeful under a microscope and examine him or her, then make an informed and responsible decision as a citizen who to vote for. Just remember, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. One proven promise is worth more than a thousand unproven promises.

Let us look back to 2000, when then presidential candidate, George W. Bush, said should he be elected president, his presidency would not be interventionist. He went further and said if the United States did not stop sending troops all around the world on nation-building missions then they would have a serious problem later, and that his presidency was going to prevent that.

But what happened then?

The writer is a Jakarta-based lawyer. The views expressed are entirely his own

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.