Put away the crystal balls and ignore all the surveys and political pundits telling you who will win the July 8 presidential elections
ut away the crystal balls and ignore all the surveys and political pundits telling you who will win the July 8 presidential elections. A lot of things will happen between now and then that could upset all the predictions.
It's not so much the goodies candidates parcel out - legally or otherwise - or the lavish promises they make. And it won't be the catchy jingles they advertise or the massive show-of-force rallies they hold. Nor will the election be decided by whether candidates are (or aren't) a "neolib" or a "fascist," or if they have Islamic credentials. Looks and incumbency may have some advantages, but these won't be determining factors either.
Indonesian voters are much more rational to fall for those.
Since all three presidential candidates are centrist-nationalist, their ideologies and platforms aren't likely to differ enough to matter to voters. Candidates' track records are also too mixed - both in good ways and bad - to be of any real help.
So, if we have to pin one determining factor to decide who wins the election, it has to be the televised public debates, all five of which have been scheduled by the General Elections Commission to take place between June 18 and July 2.
Three of these pit the presidential candidates; the incumbent Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Vice President Jusuf Kalla and former president Megawati Soekarnoputri. The other two debates involve vice presidential candidates, squaring off former Bank Indonesia governor Boediono with former Army generals Wiranto and Prabowo Subianto.
Just two weeks ago, many voters may have already made up their minds to vote in the presidential elections the same way that they voted in April. But the game changed, and the picture became blurred and unpredictable when SBY, Kalla and Megawati picked their running mates and coalition partners.
Many non-Muslims who voted for SBY's Democratic Party may not find it agreeable that he is now surrounded by Islamic parties. And the Islamic parties in the coalition are finding it hard to accept SBY's choice of Boediono. The Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) is saying it cannot sell the SBY-Boediono ticket to its constituents, unless their wives wear the Islamic veil (jilbab).
Supporters of Jusuf Kalla in Golkar are divided about Wiranto, and many say this partnership is bringing back the specter of military domination - like when the party served as the political machinery of Soeharto for three decades.
Similarly, many die-hard supporters of Megawati, who voted for her Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) in April, have difficulty endorsing Prabowo, considering the role of the Special Forces that he led in the 1990s, in the kidnapping and killing of PDI-P supporters during the Soeharto years.
What all this means is that there are many undecided if not confused voters out there. Some may decide to vote with their feet, for lack of appealing candidates, but most will vote, but only after seeing and hearing out their candidates in the public debates.
Welcome to democracy * la America.
Last year, Barack Obama beat his rivals in the Democratic Party convention and went on to win the US presidential election - largely thanks to his convincing appearances in public debates. It wasn't so much what he said as his handling of issues and his conduct in these debates.
In this television and Internet age, voters are able not only to hear out what candidates say, but more importantly, to study their characters, integrity, honesty and their overall credibility. You can teach a monkey all the political communication skills in the book, but if you don't have integrity and credibility in the first place, viewers will be able to tell from the debates.
Given the importance of these five debates, it is crucial that the organizers handle this for the maximum impact, meaning that these should be turned into a forum where candidates are tested fully, not only in terms of their knowledge and vision, but also in how they handle themselves under pressure and under attack and criticism.
The success of these debates will depend on the whether moderators and panelists (presumably there will be panelists) can thoroughly scrutinize candidates, by asking the really tough questions about their visions and past records, by making them accountable for inconsistencies between words and deed, and making sure candidates answer the questions and not let them get away with only talking about what they want to talk about without answering questions.
The KPU may have decided on topics for these debates, but their questions should not be made available to candidates beforehand, allowing candidates to prepare or choreograph their answers - as was seen in one of the recent televised debates.
If handled properly, these debates will allow voters to truly assess the characters of candidates, their sincerity, integrity and credibility; their mastery and knowledge of issues at hand; and their overall qualities as leaders and statesmen.
Simply put, if candidates cannot handle themselves well in these debates, they are not worth the votes and seats they are competing for.
These debates should not be turned into platforms for candidates to engage in rhetoric, but instead serve as screens for voters to scrutinize candidates before making up their minds who to vote for. This is not one of those reality TV shows like American Idol, but more a serious medium to test the quality of Indonesia's next leaders.
The prize is big, but serious candidates will have to work hard to win the hearts of voters.
Share your experiences, suggestions, and any issues you've encountered on The Jakarta Post. We're here to listen.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We appreciate your feedback.