T

he presidential race has never been so dynamic. We have two candidates, just like in the US, but here we have the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) and the Gerindra Party: Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo vs Prabowo Subianto.

Electing legislative candidates and the president has never been so difficult. In the past, it was easy to vote for the PDI-P (1999) or the Democratic Party (2004, 2009). Everybody seemed to agree on voting for the most '€œvictimized'€ candidate. It was Megawati Soekarnoputri in 1999 and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in 2004.

This year, we are faced with two big, strong, genuine candidates.

Jokowi represents the face of the ordinary people. The public see themselves in Jokowi: a kind and humble person. Like Megawati, and perhaps because of the PDI-P-effect, Jokowi has fanatic and loyal followers.

In the theory of persuasion, he has the quality of pathos. Everybody has empathy for him. A figure with such qualities needs no smart calculations or brilliant thoughts. Take Megawati in 1999: She showed no intelligence, she hardly even spoke and she looked bad in the presidential debate. But out of empathy, she was voted in. Megawati represented the '€œvictimized'€ (by the New Order) Indonesian people: It'€™s the power of pathos. Now Jokowi seems to have such a quality. Wherever he goes, whatever he says, people applaud and cheer him.

Prabowo, on the other hand, doesn'€™t have such qualities. He obviously does not represent the Indonesian people. He is from the elite. His party is new, incomparable with PDI-P, which has roots all over Indonesia. He has a tainted past record and he couldn'€™t even manage a family. He certainly doesn'€™t have fanatic or loyal followers like Jokowi does.

But, within a short period of time, he gained support from unpredicted areas: Islamic parties, young people and even popular singer Rhoma Irama and former Constitutional Court chief Mahfud MD.

If Jokowi has Slank, Prabowo has Rhoma, and both artists are quite equal in popularity.

Without having the quality of pathos, Prabowo can be seen as having the possible quality of logos. People will choose someone on the basis of reason. It'€™s about logic. At present, Indonesia needs a leader who can reignite the dignity of this nation. Indonesians see charisma, bravery, independence, capability and dignity in Prabowo. Perhaps, with Prabowo as president, our neighboring countries wouldn'€™t dare to build on Indonesian soil, nor inhibit ('€œsteal'€) our outer and remote tiny islands. With reason and logic, even though lacking empathy and loyalty, the people might vote for Prabowo.

If Mahfud or Anies Baswedan, the founder of the Indonesia Mengajar movement, or State-Owned Enterprises Minister Dahlan Iskan were also candidates, they would be categorized as having the quality of ethos. Perhaps they have few fanatic followers, but their track records might result in success.

Mahfud has been in several significant positions and he has always come out clean. Dahlan succeeded in managing a big media corporation, with branches throughout the archipelago. So, perhaps he would have planted roots in the remote areas. He knows Indonesia.

Anies represents the younger generation with an international reputation. Their ethos proves for themselves. Somebody might not gain a lot of empathy nor enough reason or logic to be voted for, but there are people who don'€™t see pathos and logos, they see ethos instead.

Unfortunately, the three candidates with ethos failed to enter the race.

We are now faced with two strong candidates. Both are Javanese but both have vice president candidates from outside Java. Both have support of Islamic communities and music fan bases.

The '€œclean'€ people like Anies and Mahfud are split in their political support, making it more difficult for us to decide who to choose. Mass media moguls are also split: The group of Aburizal Bakrie and the MNC Group support Prabowo, Media Group (Surya Paloh) and presumably Dahlan'€™s Jawa Pos supports Jokowi.

As an Indonesian citizen, I am rather galau (slang for anxious) for the first time in my life. Both candidates have similar degree of good and bad elements.

While Jokowi lacks national and international experience, plus the potentiality of becoming a '€œpuppet'€ president, he has proven to be successful in Surakarta and Jakarta and he seems genuinely a good person.

While Prabowo has a tainted history, he brings new hope and promise to a more dignified Indonesia. I believe I am not alone in having this dilemma.

However, I invite my fellow citizens to vote; make the effort, by voting, to make Indonesia better. And whoever becomes our next president, let'€™s hope he will be blessed in leading this nation.

The writer is a lecturer at Stikosa-AWS, Surabaya, and also founder and director of Media Watch.