2004 election: New bottle, same content, room for change<\/p>\n
Endy M. Bayuni, Deputy Chief Editor, The Jakarta Post,
\nCambridge, Massachusetts<\/p>\n
The 2004 election is just around the corner, but many,
\nespecially those in the reformist camp, have already dismissed
\nthis important national event as nothing but a political charade.
\nThey are probably right insofar as the outcome is concerned, and
\nmost polls have confirmed their cynicism.<\/p>\n
However, this year's election should also be about the process
\nas much as the result. The outcome may not significantly advance
\nthe national reform agenda, especially if the polls prove to be
\nright, but the process still marks a milestone in this nation's
\nmarch toward a truly democratic society.<\/p>\n
We hailed 1999 as the first democratic election in over four
\ndecades. That political system survived the first five years,
\nwhich, for a nascent democracy, is an achievement in itself.<\/p>\n
Now we look forward to the second democratic election, and can
\ntake further pride that we have made many significant
\nimprovements, at least institutionally, for us to be able to say
\nthat 2004 will be better than 1999. It is progress that we should
\ncherish, no matter how cynically we may view the outcome.<\/p>\n
Understandably, democracy is not simply about institution-
\nbuilding. That is probably the easiest part of the building of a
\nnation on democratic principles. Democracy, ultimately, must be
\nabout our attitudes, values, behavior and traditions. If we have
\nnot made significant changes in these areas, it is because such
\nchanges take time.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, it is not only politicians who must change.
\nVoters too must also go through this process, because,
\nultimately, they determine the outcome of a democratic election.<\/p>\n
One valuable lesson we have learned these past five years is
\nthat to change people's behavior is a time-consuming process.
\nMuch of the reform that this nation is seeking is about changing
\nbehavior. Tolerance, respecting other people's views, the rule of
\nlaw and the use of debate rather than force, are some of the
\ncharacteristics that we have yet to develop, which would support
\na functioning democracy.<\/p>\n
These are changes that can only be effected through education.
\nTinkering with the institutional setup may help a little in
\npromoting these changes. Frustrating as it may seem, we can
\nchange only as quickly as the slowest members of our society.<\/p>\n
Still, at the very least, when it comes to democratic
\nelections, we have already created the necessary institutional
\nframework. And we have come quite a long way these last five
\nyears in improving and strengthening that framework.<\/p>\n
It is a case of a new bottle with its content essentially
\nunchanged. As a nation, we have discarded the old bottle and come
\nup with a new, modified and improved bottle that shapes the way
\nwe govern this country. But it is a new bottle filled with the
\nsame content.<\/p>\n
Credit must go to the honorable members of the People's
\nConsultative Assembly (MPR) and House of Representatives who
\nworked tirelessly in building the democratic institutions these
\nlast five years.<\/p>\n
The MPR has come out with a series of amendments to the 1945
\nConstitution that lay down the basis for a more democratic
\nnation. The House has also come out with newly improved and more
\ndemocratic electoral legislation. They may not be perfect
\ndocuments, but they will do.<\/p>\n
Lest we forget, the changes are so significant, compared with
\nthe 1999 elections, that some are worth listing here:<\/p>\n
o This is the first time that people will directly elect the
\npresident and vice president. In 1999, the MPR elected the
\npresident\/vice president and this led to ugly horse-trading that
\nreflected more the power equation and bargaining skills of
\npoliticians than the wishes of the electorate.<\/p>\n
o The Regional Representative Council (DPD), a senate-like
\nbody, will be set up to give regions a greater voice in national
\naffairs, further strengthening the position of the regions vis-a-
\nvis the central government.<\/p>\n
o The MPR will comprise the House and the DPD. All members
\nwill be elected via democratic elections. In 1999, some MPR
\nmembers were appointed, including those from the Indonesian
\nMilitary\/National Police factions.<\/p>\n
o The military and police are relinquishing their
\nrepresentative seats, formally ending their role in practical,
\nday-to-day politics, after this year's election.<\/p>\n
o There will be a greater connection between voters and
\nrepresentatives, although they still vote for parties rather than
\ncandidates in the case of electing House members. This connection
\nis full for DPD members because they vote for candidates.<\/p>\n
o A General Elections Commission (KPU) has been set up that is
\nfar more independent and hopefully more credible than the one we
\nhad in 1999.<\/p>\n
o Tighter regulation on the financing of political parties and
\nelection campaigns has been introduced to minimize the likelihood
\nof vote buying.<\/p>\n
These may not be perfect, and probably fall short of
\nexpectations, but they are certainly far better than the rules
\nthat governed the 1999 election. Ultimately, these laws are only
\nas good as the people who implement and enforce them; this is
\nwhere the KPU will face the severest test of whether it is truly
\nindependent and credible.<\/p>\n
One major drawback to the present system is that, as in 1999,
\nit still grants too much power to the political parties. The
\nsystem has managed to screen the number of parties contesting the
\nelection from 48 in 1999 to 24 this year, but one gets the
\nimpression that real sovereignty is still not fully in the hands
\nof the people, as the Constitution mandates. Some of it is still
\nin the hands of the parties.<\/p>\n
The parties still determine the candidates for the House of
\nRepresentatives and have the power to recall those elected if
\nthey break ranks from party lines during their term in office.<\/p>\n
Similarly, presidential and vice presidential candidates must
\nbe nominated by political parties, effectively ruling out
\nindependent, nonpartisan figures like respected Muslim scholar
\nNurcholish Madjid from entering the contest.<\/p>\n
In spite of their immense power, the political parties do not
\ncontrol the outcome of the elections. They can only influence the
\nprocess. Since they were given the job of amending the
\nConstitution and drawing up electoral legislation, naturally,
\nthey did it in a way that favored their position and chance of
\nwinning the election.<\/p>\n
We have come a long way from the Soeharto days when he
\nessentially predetermined the election outcome, and organized the
\npolls purely to give a veneer of legitimacy to his tyrannical
\nrule. Those days, thankfully, are over. This year, as in 1999,
\nvoters, and no one else, will determine the outcome of the
\nelection.<\/p>\n
Going back to the new bottle\/old content metaphor, the task in
\nhand for the reformist camp is to improve the content -- not for
\n2004, but for 2009. We cannot expect to see significant change in
\n2004, but we can certainly prepare for 2009. Reform, and the path
\nto real democracy, are a never-ending struggle.<\/p>\n
The writer is currently studying at Harvard University under
\nfellowships jointly provided by the Nieman Foundation, Ford
\nFoundation and the Asia Foundation.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/2004-election-new-bottle-same-content-room-for-change-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}