As Indonesians are entering the third month of the year, the
political parties are busy preparing themselves and extending
their best wishes with the general election set for April 2004.
The Indonesians will elect their representatives on that day and
will choose their president three month later, on July 2004. By
all means, after the chaotic period in 1998 and 1999, the
country deserves to be at peace during the elections campaign.
As a sign of hope, in the West Java alone, it is reported that
more than 180 thousands of security personnel, from military,
police and civil guards, will take part in providing security
during the election. Nevertheless, security is still at risk.
Already the authorities warned that Malaysian terror suspect
Azahari, who is still at large in the country, could launch more
attacks during the upcoming general elections.
Besides security, there is another very important concern which
is fundamentally related to the essence of the election itself.
That is, will this election be just business as usual – read it:
more on money politics and less on substance? And will the
political elites still see this election just politics as usual
– read it: they can plot any ploy and disregard people’s votes?
If we are to be guided by the last general elections, the
elections of regional executives, the behavior of major
political parties, and by the poor commitment of the political
elites for a clean and ideal election, an election which is
inspired by substance rather than a quest for power, our concern
seems to be legitimate.
Less than six weeks away from the election, we still have not
had any idea what parties are offering to improve the nation. Last time I checked, we have 24 parties that will take part in
the election, much less than the number of participating parties
in the 1999 election. But still, 24 parties are more than
enough to confuse people from being able to distinguish one
party from another. My friend, for instance, cannot name all of
them, and neither can I. More troubling is, how can people
distinguish one party’s ideas and programs from those of
others? The familiar distinguishing indicator the people have at hand is ideology:
nationalism ,religion and
somewhere in between.
While this ideological-based categorization is important, it can over simplify
or reduce things that matter most to the nation solely on
ideology. In reality, ideological differences are only one of
the three ultimate challenges to the nation, besides power sharing and resource sharing. Encapsulate them in three
words, the nation’s challenges are: unity, democracy and
prosperity.
Unfortunately, for the second and the third challenges, we can
hardly see any coherent ideas and plans from the parties. And if
we are to be honest, if certain political parties embrace an
exclusive ideology, we can automatically be skeptical about
their ideas and plans in promoting democracy. After all,
democracy is about inclusion, not exclusion. And we can equally
be doubtful of their ideas and plan about prosperity because
prosperity is about developing together and resource
sharing. Or in the economic terms, it is about equality and a
better standard of living. It is hard to imagine equality can
spring from an exclusive view.
That leaves us wonder as what are the political parties’ agendas
in promoting democracy and in realizing prosperity. What the
people should be exposed to in order to be able to make proper
judgment in the choice of their representatives and their
president? For the election to be about substance, the people
should be provided as many opportunities as possible to learn
about the political parties’ and the presidential candidates’
ideas and programs.
For instance, specifically for the parties, where do they stand
and what are their agendas in:
1.
Revamping the entire judicial system,
2.
Combating corruption,
3.
Promoting a regionally balanced and more equal
socio-economic development,
4.
Reducing poverty,
5.
Creating jobs; attracting investments; restoring the
banking and financial system,
6.
Significantly improving our education system,
7.
Educating the youth of values so that these young people
become assets, rather than liabilities, to the nation’s future,
8.
Improving the welfare of children and youths at heart so
that we keep our children away from drugs, sex slavery and
criminal activities (see
The 2004 General Election: Where
the kids are untouched)
9.
Improving the nation’s health. The percentage of AIDS
victims seems to be rising and there seems to be a lack of
facilities which cater for them.
10.
Combating domestic and international terrorism
Hardly did I see those agendas explained clearly and coherently
by the political parties. Instead, the political parties are so
keen on talking about, for instance, corruption without knowing
exactly why it is so rampant and how really to combat it. Also,
they stated their concern on foreign debts without explaining,
at least in general concept, how to recover our economy and
create jobs. Nothing but babble platforms.
Looking back at the Clinton’s campaign in the US in 1991/2, he
clearly understood what mattered to the people: it’s the
economy, stupid. And George W. Bush came to Washington with his
educational reform campaign. The bottom line is, one has to
offer something, but it has to be a universally accepted offer.
Last year, I was asked by a communication agency, which is
managing a major political party’s campaign, to draft a campaign
theme for the party. I sketched the theme, with some detail
explanation, and more importantly, with some key points related
to many items outlined above. It was both a substance and a
strategy not only to win votes, but to improve the country. I
was also shown by the agency the whole picture/scenario of what
the party’s campaign would look like. Having submitted my
sketches, the contact with the agency ended abruptly, without my
knowing whether my ideas have been implemented or not (it will
be a cheating it they do use my ideas to which I care less).
But my ideas will unlikely be implemented for obvious reason.
From their standpoint, the election is merely a matter of
communication whereas I view the election as a matter of
substance and communication. Their paradigm is governed by a
commonly accepted notion in marketing that a good advertising is
a key to a successful marketing. But just like everything in
life, except for stupidity, things have always had their limits.
With a good advertising, one may sell a poor quality good
successfully, but soon people will discover the tricks behind
it. Or, we can fool some people all the times, but we cannot
fool the same ‘some people’ all the times. It will be a great
mistake if the political parties are buying into the advertising
paradigm and thereby keep promoting babble platforms instead of
discussing and promoting substance.
One of the key points I sketched in the campaign theme was the
connection between campaign theme and the post election policy.
When the Clinton’s team drafted the economic policy in 1992, in
which one of them was the focus on job creation, Bob Reich who
in 1991 wrote The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves for 21st
Century Capitalis, and became Clinton’s secretary of labor was
among the members. And so was Larry Lindsey who helped to design
Bush’s economic policy during the 2000 campaign. Lindsey then
became Bush’s national economic adviser chief. When Gus Dur
became president in 1999, he appointed a man with a
socio-political background as the nation’s technological
development chief. And when Megawati selected her cabinet
members in 2000, she appointed the wrong person for the wrong
job: ministry of manpower. It is not about discontinuity, but it
is the complete absent of connection between campaign and the
post election. No wonder, because for the political parties,
especially the major ones, it is not a matter of substance, it
is babble. And it is not about the need for policy and campaign
strategists, it is the need for preman and barisan
muda to intimidate others physically, not to challenge
others intellectually.
As the people are getting smarter, it is time for the major
political parties to switch their focus, from babble to
substance. Perhaps six weeks are not enough to discover, define,
analyze and sharpen their platforms. But it is better late than
never.
|
Election in Indonesia -
Time Table 2004 |
|
Date |
Description |
|
05 April |
Election of Representatives to
the House of Representatives (DPR), Regional Parliaments (DPD),
and Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) |
|
21 - 28 April |
Nation-wide announcement of
the results of the DPR, DPD and DPRD elections. |
|
29 - 30 April |
Allocation of seats in the DPR,
DPD and DPRD. |
|
01 - 07 May |
Registration of Presidential /
Vice Presidential Candidates to the National Election
Commission (KPU) by the political parties. |
|
19 May |
Finalization and announcement
of the appearance order on the ballot for Presidential /
Vice-Presidential Candidates. |
|
01 June - 01 July |
Authorized Campaign Period. |
|
02 - 04 July |
Cooling Off Period. No
Campaigning Permitted. |
|
05 July |
First Round of Presidential /
Vice-Presidential Election Process. |
|
26 July |
Nation-wide announcement of
the results of the first round of Presidential /
Vice-Presidential Election Process. |
|
30 July - 05 August |
Nation-wide announcement of 2
sets of Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates for
the Second and final-round vote. |
|
14 - 16 September |
Campaign Period. |
|
20 September |
Second round of Voting in the
Presidential / Vice-Presidential Elections. |
|
05 October |
Formal nation-wide
announcement of the winners of the Presidential /
Vice-Presidential Election. |
|
20 October |
The inauguration of the
President and Vice-President. |
See also:
The Prospect
is published by The Indonesian Institute. Our messages are
study, democracy and unity.
