Armando Siahaan – The calendar says it's November 2011. But in a nation where the addiction to political drama rivals a fat kid's craving for candy, it feels like 2014, the jolly presidential election season.
Last week, the nation got a hint of who might win the next presidential contest based on the calculated prophecy otherwise known as a survey. The problem is three surveys predicted three different winners.
The Reform Institute had Golkar's Aburizal Bakrie at No. 1, followed by former Gen. Prabowo Subianto and ex-VP Jusuf Kalla.
The Suegeng Sarjadi Syndicate came up with Prabowo, followed by the Constitutional Court's Mahfud MD and reform heroine Sri Mulyani Indrawati.
Finally, the Indonesia Voting Network predicted former President Megawati Sukarnoputri for the win, followed by Prabowo and Aburizal.
It's easy to see why those names might raise a few eyebrows.
First there's Bakrie, Golkar's big boss. As a businessman, he's been pounced on for the Lapindo mud flow disaster. As a politician, he's been accused of engineering the ousting of former Finance Minister Sri Mulyani.
Then there's Prabowo, the leader of the Great National Movement (Gerindra) party. Given his history as the ex-chief of the Kopassus special forces during the Suharto years, there are still unresolved human rights issues dogging his bid.
And, of course, we have Megawati, chairwoman of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P). Once hailed as the savior of the nation who would change the fate of Indonesia, as president she came up very short.
But the main issue is not who won these early polls, but the surveys themselves. It would be unfair to immediately conclude that these institutions were influenced, if not paid, by certain parties. But given the inconsistency, it's difficult not to wonder about their credibility.
The election is still far away and these recent surveys raise inevitable questions about their raison d'etre and the people who commissioned the research.
Surveys are supposed to be a scientific way to handicap politics, but the fickleness of this trio makes the process seem less than trustworthy. And even if the surveys were conducted free from divine – or mortal – intervention, it's still unhealthy to prematurely air the names of presidential candidates to the public.
In a way, the survey bodies are playing kingmaker. The results are published widely by the media, putting them in the public arena and helping shape public opinion for 2014. Even before any polling takes place, the institutions also influence the outcome by deciding what names are included.
One survey excluded Megawati's name from the list of candidates altogether. It's true that her husband Taufik Kiemas said she is "too old" to run again, but is it the survey's place to say that Megawati shouldn't be considered?
On the other hand, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has previously said that his wife, Ani Yudhoyono, would not gun for the top seat. Yet, her name is included in all three surveys. Let's just hope that SBY won't be offended by this.
Like it or not, the results of these surveys will be used by some people to help them decide who they'll eventually vote for. But people shouldn't vote merely based on the results of a political sideshow masquerading as science. In a democracy, choices should be based on beliefs, ideology and platforms. And that should happen when the right time comes.
Of course, there is a bright side to all of this. For those who are already jaded by the current administration, it's nice to have an excuse to muse on who might be the next president.