I

nitially, I did not take a forwarded text message from a friend seriously and treated it as equally as other messages that have popped up onto my cell phone screen '€” ending up in the trash. It was a surprise, however, that I did not delete this particular text message and saved it into one folder instead.

I did not remember anything of this saved message until a few months later when issues on succession of the state leadership began to swamp media headlines here. I felt fortunate that I did not delete the message as its content has apparently inspired me in writing this piece.

The text message '€” written in quiz-like style '€” asks the reader to pick one of the three candidates available on the menu as his/her State leader. The quiz does not provide names of the candidates, but their past historical background (the background provided are true).

Candidate A is described as a man who worked hand in hand with dishonest politicians and consulted with astrologists in many of his decision-making processes. He has two wives, is an active smoker and quite a drunkard.

Candidate B is described as a man who was expelled from office twice before, often sleeps until noon, an opium smoker during school years and drinks Whiskey every night.

Meanwhile, Candidate C is a war hero, a vegetarian, a non-smoker, a faithful man and only drinks beer once in a while.

Upon reading their CVs, it is very likely that readers will vote for Candidate C as all his past historical background represents positive side of him as a person if compared with the other two who are mostly negative. Common sense will say that Candidate C'€™s background is a guarantee that he will become a good leader.

But wait! Do not hastily conclude and be sure that their choice is correct as Candidate C was later on recorded in history as one of the ruthless dictators that the world has ever had. Candidate A was a popular leader and rated as one of the top three presidents of a Western country, while Candidate B was a successful prime minister of another Western country, who was dubbed the most influential person throughout the history of his country.

The intriguing question is how could it have happened that all positive character of a person fails to contribute to the success of his as a leader?

The answer is simple: In countries where Candidate A and Candidate B live, state affairs come under a proper system of '€œchecks and balances'€ '€” the separation of power between the three branches of power, i.e. the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.

The country of Candidate C was proven the contrary: It was he (Candidate C) that managed to exercise control of all aspects of state affairs (the three branches of power), thus, leaving him as a sole power in his country and making him a true dictator.

The next question is why the same quiz or story is relevant here?

Indonesia is welcoming a two-tier five-yearly political event next year '€” legislative election in April and presidential election in July. Above all, the presidential election is obviously the much anticipated political event as it will constitutionally determine who will be the top leading executive of the country for the following five years.

The race for presidency is expected to be merrier this time, especially because the incumbent president, who won the title twice in a row, cannot compete for the third time as prohibited by the Constitution.

So far a number of political parties have named their candidates for presidency. Golkar Party has named Chairman Aburizal Bakrie as its candidate, Great Indonesia Movement (Gerindra) Party has named its chief patron Prabowo Subianto, People'€™s Conscience (Hanura) Party has named its chairman Wiranto and National Mandate Party (PAN) has also named its chairman Hatta Rajasa.

The ruling party, the Democratic Party (PD) will have to wait until the completion of its Convention before naming one, while the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) will likely nominate either chairwoman Megawati Soekarnoputri or its '€œrising star'€ Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo, the current governor of Jakarta.

Aburizal, Hatta and Jokowi have entrepreneurship as their background, while both Prabowo and Wiranto have a military background. Aburizal, Hatta and Wiranto have the benefit of having served in the Cabinet as ministers, while both Prabowo and Jokowi do not. Megawati is a housewife, but has experience as president when in 2001 she succeeded Abdurrahman Wahid who stepped down from presidency.

All of the above-mentioned candidates for sure have weaknesses or impediment that will '€” or at least may '€” hamper their chances in the presidential race. Aburizal is associated with the Lapindo mudflow case in Sidoarjo, East Java, while Hatta is considered by many as an average Cabinet minister.

Prabowo and Wiranto have been associated with human rights allegation while in military service although there have been no courts of trial to prove the allegations against them.

Megawati is considered too old to run as she will be 67 next year, the same age as Wiranto (both are the oldest among the candidates), while Jokowi is said to be lacking of experience at the national level although he is the youngest.

If the same quiz-like question to be applied here, there will certainly be no guarantee that any of those candidates will turn out to be a perfect president and not become a dictator unless the same criteria for true implementation of '€œchecks and balances'€ is also applied in the process.

The winner will be decided by the voters themselves. But remember: '€œCaveat suffragator'€ (Let the voter beware).

The author is a staff writer at The Jakarta Post.