The general elections are over and the presidential election is just around the corner. Basically, voters will choose someone they believe will act on their behalf and interests. From the last general elections, we can see most candidates campaigned very hard to introduce themselves to their constituent by filling streets with posters of their smiling faces. In the last four months, TV viewers have been flooded with ads by parties and promises almost every day.

These parties have so far spent billions and billions on rupiah on advertising. Has it been effective? Yes, it has? The Great Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra) is a good example. As a new party, Gerindra - with Lt. Gen. (ret) Prabowo at its helm - is now considered an important contender after intensive advertising, mainly on TV, for several months. Now, people can easily connect the party with its founder, Prabowo. The same applies for the People's Conscience Party (Hanura) and its founder, Gen. (ret) Wiranto. Again, thanks to mass media that facilitated them with space to advertise.

The question is whether voters need to know their candidates, or is it enough just to be familiar with them? The nature of a campaign advertisement is that it only delivers positive information about the candidate. That is very normal. The problem starts when there is no alternative information for the public in the midst of these campaign advertisements. When people select based on any aspect from photographs (smiles, faces, skin color, or a picture of a famous person standing behind the candidate in the picture), then democracy is in jeopardy.

Our voters tend to base their decisions on simple reasons such as a candidate's ideology, physical appearance, or because they see the candidate quite often on TV.

There is nothing wrong with voting for a candidate based on simple reasons. But it's just not enough. The key to success in democracy is when each element does its work. Candidates campaign hard to let themselves and their proposals be known to the public. And the public scrutinizes candidates based on their proposals, profiles and track records. Prior track records are an important piece of information that voters must look at. A candidate's past gives a more complete picture of their associations, judgment, leading style and all other attributes that enable voters to make a more rational decision.

However, voters do not have time and resources to get such information. They are too busy and too tired for such a thing. So who will provide them the information? The media, particularly the print media.

As one of the pillars of democracy, the media is obliged to provide information to voters so they can scrutinize the candidates. During this time of the year, it is a mutually beneficial activity. The media has the resources to tell stories about candidates' pasts, gaffes, associations, campaign team members and donors.

And the media does not have to be neutral. They can take sides, and that makes the media a useful pillar of democracy. When newspapers or TV take sides, that is even better for educating voters. Voters become aware that a candidate is a mere human and a mere human can make mistakes or be challenged. Voters also have the option to think and choose rationally which story to believe in.

So, to Indonesia's press: The time has come for you to show your true colors. politically.

The writer is a graduate of the University of Oregon's Planning, Public Policy and Management Department, and now works at the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK). The views expressed are his own.

Popular

Retail sales, consumer confidence ease as Idul Fitri boost dissipates

Students to rally against Prabowo amid economic pressures

Number of forcibly displaced people dips to 118 million: UN