Endy M. Bayuni, Jakarta – Remember voting for your class leader in school? Did you vote for him because of what he promised to do or more because of what he had done for you? Presumably, it was a combination of the two. Track record was as important as vision in class elections.

This should be the case too with the presidential election next month. Observing the way the campaign has been conducted, however, we seem to be putting most, if not all, of the emphasis on candidates' visions. Rarely do we hear them talking about their track records. When we do, they are only mentioned in passing.

While it is understandable that the candidates want to put their message across to voters about what they intend to do once they are elected into office, there is no reason why the KPU and the media should be complicit in this salesmanship game.

The goal of the KPU and the independent media instead should be to ensure that the winners of the July 8 election are the result of informed choices. Voters should have full knowledge, as far as possible, of all six candidates, from their vision and mission, their platform and program, and yes, down to their track records.

The last thing Indonesia needs is to elect a pair of leaders on the basis of our partial knowledge about the candidates, only to be surprised or shocked later on by revelations of their past misconducts or flaws in their characters.

The five public debates organized by the KPU – three for the presidential candidates and two for their running mates beginning June 18 – unfortunately are designed by law to give candidates the chance to convey and elaborate on their vision and mission statements and nothing else.

Since these statements have already been widely disseminated to the public, the only real takeaway from these debates will be in learning about the communication skills of candidates.

Vision and communication skills are important qualities in selecting a leader, but these issues are taking us only a little further than a beauty pageant would. We as a nation have been lenient in letting politicians get away with saying one thing but doing completely the opposite. Some candidates are already making wild promises in their campaigns, essentially talking the talk. If we only bothered to check on their past conduct, we would learn that they have not necessarily walked the walk.

The public debates organized by the KPU on TV stations provide the best chance for the public to scrutinize candidates' track records and make them accountable for their past deeds, both good and bad.

Evidence of inconsistencies between candidates' words and deeds are plentiful on issues like human rights, democracy, corruption, and freedoms of speech or religion that this is really the ideal time to know not only where they stand, but also to let them explain themselves and what they have actually done.

Voters have the right to know not only the position of candidates on these issues, but also why they are now contradicting their past conduct and statements.

Vision is about the future, something that could or could not happen. Track record has to do with the past, something that has happened and been recorded. Both are important in any election, but the latter would be a better gauge of a leader's quality than the former.

With the battle now focusing on vision and platform, and not so much on track records, candidates are trying to outdo one another in their election promises. Even candidates that are leading the polls have been caught up in the game of promising more than they can ever expect to deliver once elected.

But then, what else is new? Have we not been here before?

If this election is to take us a little further from the last one in 2004, this is one area for improvement. We need to make this election go beyond just the popularity contest that is now being played out.

All candidates should be subjected to a much closer scrutiny than they are getting. We have to go back to their track records and find inconsistencies between what they are preaching today and what they have said or done in the past. Their responses, and how they say them, will be additional crucial tests of their leadership qualities and characters.

Granted, it is easier to check the track records of the incumbent President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and his Vice President Jusuf Kalla, and, to a lesser extent, SBY's running mate Boediono, since all three have been in public office for much of the past five years.

Megawati was last in the public eye when she was dethroned in 2004, while Wiranto served in public office until 2000 and Prabowo in 1998. But the fact we have to go back 11 years should not stop us from checking their track records in order to judge them.

All six candidates have some dirt from their pasts that they are hiding. This has not come out yet in the campaign, thanks partly to the docile media, partly because the rules regarding election debates aren't designed that way, and partly because the candidates have deployed media experts and spin doctors that have successfully concealed the dirty laundry of the candidates.

For now, it seems, they have outwitted the media and the public.