A

fter weeks of tough negotiations, nine of the 10 political parties that passed the threshold of 3.5 percent of the popular vote in the April 9 legislative election eventually made up their mind and opted to join either the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI-P)-led coalition or the Gerindra Party-led coalition, ahead of the May 20 deadline for registration of presidential and vice-presidential candidates. The Democratic Party decided at the last minute not to join either of the two camps but to remain neutral instead.

Voters now have the choice between two pairs of presidential-vice presidential candidates: Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo-Jusuf Kalla and Prabowo Subianto-Hatta Rajasa in the upcoming July 9 presidential election. From the ideological make-up of their coalition members, both pairs (and their camps) offer a combination of a nationalist-religious package to the electorate.

In the campaign supporters of both pairs of candidates will strive hard to promote the positive and best sides of their candidates and will be adamant in their defense.

However, nobody is perfect. Both pairs, particularly the presidential candidates, have their weaknesses. If elected, the candidates, as human beings, would naturally defend themselves against all forms of criticism up to the point that they might end up going on the offensive '€“ perhaps in an authoritarian way '€“ against those critics, particularly the outspoken ones; or against any other efforts to challenge or question their policies.

We may well remember the way our founding president Sukarno, or his successor Soeharto, silenced their critics: some, who were part of the government and establishment, were removed from office; others ended up in jail for their opposing views or stances. Such repressive approaches also targeted outspoken media organizations and commentators.

The same habits, although perhaps on a much softer and smaller scale, were still practiced by state leaders in the post-reformasi era. Die-hard supporters of then president Abdurrahman '€œGus Dur'€ Wahid and his successor Megawati Soekarnoputri reacted vehemently against outspoken critics and the media, although neither Gus Dur nor Megawati vented their anger against such strong criticism in public, or took action against their critics.

The government of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono apparently has a relatively good score in upholding press freedom, as well as freedom of opinion and expression. It was during his leadership that an article on blasphemy was revoked by the Constitutional Court.

There was one misstep, however, that was the '€œconstitutional attempts'€ to tame the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) through judicial review of the Corruption Law.

The hot issue at the moment is which pair will be elected to state leadership. As highlighted in my '€œView Point'€ of Nov. 24, 2013, ('€œIn search of the best figure for the presidency: '€˜Caveat suffragator'€™'€), there is no guarantee that a candidate with a less-than-favorable background or track record will not be successful in his/her career as a state leader; while on the contrary a candidate with a superior and perfect-looking background might not automatically be a perfect or successful leader.

The crux of the article was the true story of three leaders of three different Western countries. It is true that the socio-economic and socio-cultural conditions of Western countries are different from ours, a significant factor when making comparisons and evaluations of the performance of governments worldwide.

However, there is one thing in common that those successful governments share: they have solid systems of checks and balances.

With checks and balances, each of the three branches of government can limit and balance the powers of the others. This way, no branch becomes too powerful. The question is whether the legislative and judicial branches of government here can truly perform their power to check the other, most powerful one '€“ the executive.

Our judicial institutions; the court system, from the lowest district court level up to the highest level, the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, and the two law-enforcement institutions with prosecuting power; the public prosecutors'€™ office from the lowest regency/mayoral prosecutors'€™ office level up to the highest level, the Attorney General'€™s Office; and the police, are still haunted by their lack of credibility and tarnished images due to frequent graft scandals. It is therefore doubtful whether such an ideal implementation of checks-and-balances could be exercised.

There is another institution with prosecuting power '€“ the KPK '€“ which has so far performed well in the fight against corruption. Despite its bold performance, the commission, however, needs to prove its true independence as it has often been mired in controversy in regard to the time it has taken in uncovering a number of corruption cases and in naming suspects.

Worse is the fact that at least two thirds of the elected members of the House of Representatives '€“ the highest legislative branch of government '€“ are new faces, with many lacking knowledge and experience in legislation and legislative duties, while the remaining third are old faces, part of the 2009-2014 House membership. Some of the outgoing House members have been implicated and convicted in a variety of corruption cases.

The moral of the story here is therefore not who will be the elected president and vice president, it is more whether or not we can have a solid system of checks and balances to control the executive, so that it always complies with the rules and regulations.

It sounds utopian, but certainly it is not unattainable.

The author is a staff writer at The Jakarta Post.