One of the most interesting aspects of observing the Indonesian elections was the stark contrast in campaign styles between the political parties and candidates. As someone who had been immersed in the Filipino electoral landscape, I couldn’t help but compare the methods and strategies used by Indonesian political parties to those that have become familiar in the Philippines. The differences were not only a reflection of the unique political environments of each country, but also an indication of how deeply culture and history shape the way elections are conducted.
In Indonesia, the election campaigns were marked by a noticeable level of discipline, respect, and orderliness that stood in stark contrast to the often chaotic and colorful campaigns in the Philippines. Indonesian political rallies, while spirited and enthusiastic, were much more focused and restrained. There were no massive caravans of vehicles blaring loud music or extravagant street parties. Instead, rallies were smaller, more focused events where candidates and their supporters engaged in conversations and discussions about policy rather than engaging in spectacle or pageantry.
One of the most striking things I observed was the overall cleanliness and organization of campaign events. As I mentioned earlier, once the campaign period ended, all traces of political advertisements and materials were immediately removed from public spaces. In the Philippines, this is often not the case. Election-related posters, tarpaulins, and billboards continue to clutter streets and public spaces long after the campaign period has ended, often leaving a trail of garbage and disorganization in their wake. The Indonesian commitment to cleaning up after the campaign period was a small but powerful gesture that reflected a higher level of civic responsibility and respect for public spaces.
Moreover, the Indonesian elections were characterized by a certain level of political maturity that was reflected in the way the candidates presented themselves and interacted with their constituents. There were no mudslinging attacks or personal insults between candidates—something that is all too common in Philippine elections. Instead, candidates focused on policy discussions, with a clear emphasis on their vision for Indonesia’s future. Even in the heat of campaigning, the tone remained largely respectful, with candidates appealing to voters based on their qualifications and policies rather than on personal attacks.
This focus on policy over personality was a welcome change from the often personality-driven campaigns in the Philippines. In our country, elections are frequently about the candidates’ public personas rather than their actual platforms. Candidates with the most money, name recognition, and media presence often dominate the race, regardless of their qualifications or positions on important issues. In contrast, the Indonesian campaign style placed more importance on the candidates’ policy positions and their ability to deliver a vision for the future.
Another key difference was the level of voter engagement and participation in the campaign process. In Indonesia, political parties and candidates made a clear effort to engage with the people on a personal level. The rallies and events were not just about candidates speaking to a crowd, but about fostering a two-way dialogue between the leaders and the people. Candidates took the time to listen to the concerns of their constituents and to address their issues directly. This made the campaign feel less like a spectacle and more like a genuine effort to understand and address the needs of the people.
In the Philippines, voter engagement can sometimes be more transactional. While there are certainly instances of candidates engaging with the public on a personal level, the overall tone of campaigns is often focused on “giving away” or “handing out” favors in exchange for votes. This dynamic contributes to the culture of patronage politics in our country, where votes are sometimes bought with promises of material rewards rather than with meaningful policy proposals.
The difference in campaign styles also reflected the differing political environments in both countries. In Indonesia, the transition from authoritarian rule to democracy created an environment in which parties and candidates had to prove their commitment to democratic principles, good governance, and the rule of law. As a result, the focus was on creating a sense of political maturity and professionalism that could appeal to a public eager for a change from the past.
In the Philippines, the political environment is shaped by a long history of democratic practices, but also by the continuing challenges of corruption, inequality, and political dynasties. The electoral process in the Philippines often feels more like a contest for power than a contest of ideas, with many candidates focusing on personal appeal and name recognition rather than on policy platforms or governance.
While the differences between the two countries’ election campaigns are stark, there are lessons to be learned from Indonesia’s approach. By emphasizing discipline, focus on policy, and genuine engagement with voters, the Indonesian political system has set a standard that the Philippines can aspire to. There is no reason why we cannot adopt some of these practices in our own electoral processes. The key lies in shifting the focus from spectacle to substance, and from personality to policy.
It is also worth noting that while the Indonesian campaigns were generally more disciplined and orderly, they were not without their flaws. Like any country, Indonesia faces its own challenges in terms of political engagement, corruption, and social inequality. However, the willingness to engage in a respectful, focused, and substantive election process is something that we can all learn from. It is a reminder that the true purpose of elections is not simply to win votes, but to foster a healthy and functional democracy where the interests of the people are placed at the forefront.
No comments:
Post a Comment