TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular
Top Results
No results found
Popular
Top Results
No results found
Insight: Do ideas matter in an election?
Presidential debates are a favorite pastime of mine. Whether I am alone or with company, they never fail to awaken the teenage girl within me who delights in arguments and their deconstruction.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
P
residential debates are a favorite pastime of mine. Whether I am alone or with company, they never fail to awaken the teenage girl within me who delights in arguments and their deconstruction. It is probably the same reason I have delved into public policy—a world full of ambiguity and contrasting positions—for the past 10 years; those who know me well would go as far as calling arguments my “love language”.
Naturally, my eyes were glued to the screen during the past two debates. Many punches were thrown, and each candidate’s position became much clearer in my head. However, I was surprised to find a flood of video clips on social media the following morning that framed the outcome to be almost contrary to how I remembered it went. Even more fundamentally, some would contend that these debates “do not matter” because that’s not what being a president is about.
So, what is being a president about?
In a few months, Indonesia will hold its quinquennial “hiring panel” consisting of over 200 million voters. Alas, everyone has a different idea about what the job entails, and subsequently the criteria to choose one candidate over another. To make it even more complicated, it will be the first time voting for roughly a quarter of them.
This predicament is not unique to Indonesia but exists in democracies all around the world. In 2016, the United States decided to hire a narcissistic businessman who promised to build a wall. In 2019, Brazil followed by electing a populist who championed deforestation of the Amazon. In 2022, the Philippines went for the former dictator’s son partly thanks to his dance moves on the stage. These are all valid outcomes of democracy as they captured what the countries’ majority was looking for at a given time.
Hence election, at its core, is a clash of “Which criteria should we base our votes on?” Once we figure that out, candidates will just race to fit in.
One of the most universal criteria is likeability. Steve Jarding, my former professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, always told his “Making of a Politician” classroom that at the end of the day, it is about making your voters feel like they can ‘sit down and have a drink with you’. As much as I abhor it, what he said makes sense.
Naturally, good-looking candidates will have the upper hand. When voters are not looking for a strong authority figure, former generals may want to appear endearing and adorable. Candidates carefully decide what to wear to make an impression, intentionally use certain diction to charm and opt for certain activities to seem relatable.
The problem arises when likeability is the only criterion. It is even more dangerous when a candidate’s likability prompts us to ignore their dispositions.
Presidential and legislative candidates have specific duties. How good they are at their job will determine the well-being of all of us at least for the next five years. Will we have livable cities that are resilient to disasters? What kind of jobs will we have in the future—will the hours be decent, and will they pay well? Will we be able afford housing and have access to basic services? Will we solve corruption and protect freedom of expression? Are we going to wage wars with another country?
Achieving the above is not a straightforward piece of work. While it is not a sin to hire someone we like, it should never be done in a way that undermines the basic eligibility criteria and competence requirements. The bar needs to be set higher—we are hiring individuals to sit in arguably the most important office, after all. It takes someone with clear policy positions, leadership, experience in getting things done, character and integrity, as well as decision-making and communication skills.
Ideas, in this case, could help shed light on these criteria.
Ideas are what fuel a candidate’s policy positions and the values implied by them. The way a candidate answers questions about economic development and climate change or freedom of expression, generally signals their issue prioritization. While they may have political incentives to promise whatever the people want, and in practice will always have to compromise, it is still an initial anchor from which the reality will deviate.
Second, we can test a candidate’s understanding oF the complexity of getting things done through the way they describe their ideas. Do they oversimplify the challenge, or do they understand the need to accommodate various stakeholder interests? With the right questions, we can get some clues on whether they have dealt with operational constraints on the ground.
Third, debates help us assess a leader’s skill to articulate abstract ideas effectively. Their ability to empathize and facilitate different perspectives is critical and can make or break a plan. It is not enough just to have great ideas; it is even more important to have the ability to sell them to the parties involved.
That said, speeches can only go so far. Claims need to be validated by track records, which substantiate their leadership and decision-making capacities.
Just as a company would corroborate interview results through a reference check, a candidate’s past is how we can authenticate their claims. Did they respect evidence and the technocratic process in the policies they have implemented? How did they react in difficult situations which tested their integrity? They say good decisions are about increasing the probability of good outcomes, although they do not guarantee them. Our responsibility as an electorate is to vote for someone with good decision-making skills.
Finally, as governing is teamwork, a candidate’s affiliations are important: Which political parties, military backings, business groups and mass organizations are behind them?
In a large political coalition, the elected president will have to auction various ministerial seats to those who helped them win, but may not necessarily be the best person for the job. This coalition will determine the compromises that will need to take place in the parliament and create various political economy constraints. The more sizable their economic, political and social debt in winning the election, the more they need to “pay” during their administration.
We built the bijakmemilih.id website with this logic in mind. We believe that electorates need to know their issues, the political parties and—only then—the candidates. Urban, middle-class voters need to take serious advantage of their privilege to access information and take their time in deciding.
That being said, getting things done in public policy relies on multiple systemic factors beyond any individual. Democracy goes beyond just giving our vote responsibly on Feb. 14, but also closely monitoring and participating in public consultations related to regulation and budgeting. A wise vote, therefore, is not an end for better public policy, but rather the start of it all.
The writer is a Co-Initiator at BijakMemilih.id and the Founder of Think Policy.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official stance of The Jakarta Post.
