T

he Democratic Party and Golkar Party, the 2009 general election winner and runner-up, respectively, are approaching the 2014 presidential election in contrasting styles.

Golkar chairman Aburizal Bakrie ruled last week that he would take the nomination for himself, while the Democrats announced their plan this week to put the nomination process through a national convention. One goes through a closed system, and the other hopefully through a more open and transparent system of nomination.

Kudos to the Democrats for taking this path. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, their winning candidate in 2004 and 2009, can no longer run in 2014 and the party has struggled to come up with a candidate of similar stature. In the meantime, corruption scandals involving the party’s top leaders are hurting its image and possibly undermining its chances in 2014. Holding a convention to nominate its presidential candidate could go a long way in repairing the party’s credibility.

If they play their cards right, the Democrats could even come up with a winner. There is room for more credible candidates in a race currently dominated by old and tired figures like Aburizal, Prabowo Subianto and Megawati Soekarnoputri. Voters are dismayed with the limited choices available, and survey after survey indicate larger and larger numbers of undecided voters.

Golkar is shooting itself in the foot with Aburizal muscling and paying his way through the nomination process. Bakrie’s expulsion of 12 Golkar executives in North Sumatra for opposing his nomination is only the beginning of a new round of dissensions that will lead to even more people abandoning the party. Golkar already lost a number of prominent figures who broke away to establish the National Democrat Party.

Already we are hearing grumbling from Golkar elders such as Akbar Tandjung about the lack of transparency in the presidential nomination process. Many party insiders believe that Aburizal, who trails a distant third in almost all surveys, has little chance of winning because of the problems involving his family business Bakrie Group, including the unresolved compensation issue for victims of the mudflow in East Java.

A national convention to select a presidential candidate is not such a novelty. Golkar, faced with the same predicament of not having a credible candidate in 2004, took this path. Sadly, money politics ruled the day, and the party could not have come up with a worse loser than Gen. Wiranto. One lesson for Democrats when they hold their convention before 2014 is to make the process truly open, transparent and credible.

There is also the appeal of having a convention. The chosen candidate for the presidential nomination will go through a grueling process and will be heavily scrutinized for his personal character, skills and track record. Voters will learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the chosen presidential candidate more so than candidates who never had to go through a similar process.

Political parties by definition are public institutions in which openness and transparency are essential to their management. Since the larger parties represented in the House of Representatives receive state funding for their operations, they should also be held accountable by the public. They are public institutions that are owned by the public.

Unfortunately, most, if not all, political parties are still run as if they belong to the leaders, or in the case of Golkar, by its chief financier. These parties and their representatives still operate to serve or protect their own interests rather than those of the people.

Few parties have grasped the essence that they are public rather than private institutions. The convention to pick a presidential candidate by the Democratic Party would be a step in the right direction in correcting this mistake and in giving the public a greater sense of ownership of their political party.

Will anybody else follow this step?