F

acing the elections, things are looking dark and gloomy. Indonesian politicians, as we know, have yet to demonstrate what role they play, if any, in helping shape this country to be better. While everybody seems to be aware of that, there'€™s something that most people are missing. And that is the role of our political pundits, who, without most of us realizing it, are making things worse.  

I admit there are several heavyweight experts who constantly offer us deep, quality analysis. These experts educate the public with their objectivity, encouraging the young to become actively involved in political development in this country. Meanwhile, others are simply flooding our heads with comments we don'€™t need.

We have to shield ourselves from these so-called political pundits, who are really just commentators. There'€™s a big difference between a real political expert and a political commentator. A real expert has the capability to defend his or her arguments, backed by strong, academic data. A commentator, on the other hand, is simply a person who, well, comments.

What these political commentators are doing is talking and talking, right in front of our eyes, suggesting this and that without any in-depth analysis, as if we are all so stupid. There'€™s no enlightenment or inspiration provided in their comments because what they do, after all, is offer never-ending debates.  

The above argument can be easily seen from the lively, ongoing public discourse on Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo'€™s chance of winning the presidency in the coming election. Nobody exactly knows who first brandied this idea, but it'€™s pretty obvious that the political commentators are the ones who have been aggressively pushing this possibility to the public arena as early as in the first few months of Jokowi, being sworn in as the governor of Jakarta.

 I'€™m not against Jokowi. Along with Deputy Governor Basuki '€œAhok'€ Tjahaja Purnama, he has brought about some promising improvements in Jakarta. And I'€™m also not against the idea of Jokowi running for president. What I want to put in the spotlight is how these political commentators have corrupted people'€™s minds, entrapping us all in unnecessary debates.

Turn on your TV set and watch one of the political talk shows, usually aired at prime time. What you'€™ll see is an all-too-familiar scene: someone will say that Jokowi is the strongest presidential candidate, able to defeat other candidates with ease. And what'€™s the basis of this prediction? Yes, you guessed right. The prediction is, of course, based on a recent survey conducted by an institution to which this so-called expert belongs. I'€™m tired of the shallow rationale used by many political commentators to back their claims. Can we please hear something more convincing than poll results? I'€™m not against surveys and polls, as some institutions are credible enough to conduct them. But we are also aware of the rumors saying that you can commission a poll with specific results, of course for a hefty price.

 They don'€™t need to tell us that Jokowi is leading the polls and that public support for his presidential candidacy is increasing. We know that already. Can we hear other arguments, such as whether Jokowi should run for president? At best, what they could tell us is how Jokowi'€™s down-to-earth approach with impromptu visits, locally known as blusukan, has helped the man gain political momentum so quickly.

What these political commentators should do is prompt people to be critical by discussing more in-depth issues and challenge them by tossing out important questions, such as, '€œHow would Jokowi tackle the economic challenges of our country, such as the ongoing current-account deficit, if he were elected president?'€ or '€œIs he the right man to improve the quality of education for the young as this nation'€™s future depends on them?'€ or '€œWould he be the right man to lead Indonesia on the aspect of international negotiations?'€

The reason these commentators fail to address the more detailed topics is probably because they are too pragmatic, representing the benefits of certain groups, and too lazy to dwell on other matters outside, although related to, the political arena. In developed countries, where politics has reached maturity, we find many real political pundits who have broad knowledge on politics and other matters. So when they assess a candidate, they don'€™t just refer to poll results but also explain in great detail why the numbers are developing the way they are.

My advice here is simple: Don'€™t believe what these commentators are telling you. Do a bit of research, and let yourself be the one who decides.

The writer is an account manager at GolinHarris, an award-winning communications firm.