Those people that have been busy opposing the idea of presidential candidates with military backgrounds have their own reasons. The presence of ex-military candidates is seen as having the potential to bring about a return to the militaristic and authoritarian New Order and to hamper the reform process, especially reform of the law, because of their actions in the past.

These people believe that if a former military person wins, it will lead to a government more or less the same as those of the Suharto era. Nepotism will flourish, there will be collusion between tycoons and the authorities, and the military will have a greater political role.

On the other hand, those who support the idea of a military presidential candidate think that an ex-military figure at the top will guarantee strong leadership of the government. They believe that only an ex-military president will be able to control the military. And anyway, is there any law that stops former military persons from running for president?

It is difficult to reconcile these two opinions, even more so to reconcile the differing motives and political aims. And if the rumors that one party wants to use the anti-military issue to attack its opponents are true, there is a real potential of dangerous conflict in the run-up to July 5.

Basically, people are worried about a return to militarism, a government that runs the state in a harsh and disciplined military fashion. Discipline is needed, but both those who are for and those who are against the idea of an ex-military president oppose the idea of governing the nation in a military style.

And it is not only the military who behave militaristically: civilians groups also do so, for example with the dubious acts of the political parties' task forces. Opposition to militarism is not only found among civilians. There are even military figures who oppose it.

If we say that militarism is the root of the problem, remembering that it can be contagious among the military as well as among civilians, is it right to oppose an ex-military candidate merely because he or she happens to be a former soldier? And conversely, it is by no means certain that a civilian presidential candidate will not act in a militaristic fashion one she or he takes office.

But in the midst of this civil-military debate, there is something odd that stands out, and resembles a political caricature. Those opposed to a military presidential candidate are busy demonstrating against the idea, but at the same time politicians are trying hard to approach former soldiers – for the role of president or vice president. The picture becomes even more confusing if we take a closer look at these new alliances in the context of events in the past. A person who has struggled for humanistic values, for example, is paired with a former opponent. But what can we do? Civilian or military status is no longer the consideration; what matters is how to gain power.

This means it is more relevant to examine the candidates' track records. This way we have a chance to judge the five pairings who will do battle. For example, what are their leadership qualities, their commitment to democracy, their performance to date, and their commitment to stamping out corruption.

With these criteria, we will know the quality of our presidential candidates, and we will be able to make the difficult choice between civilian and military.

Those who wish to continue campaigning for their choice are of course free to hold their opinions. As long as they break no laws, their freedom of opinion must be protected. Accusing critics of "wanting to cause the election to fail" seems old-fashioned and only serves to remind the public of the disastrous New Order era. If there is proof that these people have broken the law, the courts are the best place to resolve the matter. In fact, militaristic methods to gag protestors-which lately has often been seen-must be fought off.

Remember, militarism is a latent danger that will always threaten our democracy; therefore we must parry whoever wants to endure it-from the very start.