Democracy fiesta and profits<\/p>\n
R. Kristiawan, Media Working Group for Election Program Science,
\nAesthetics, and Technology Foundation (SET), Jakarta
\nrkristiawan@yahoo.com<\/p>\n
The upcoming elections will take place in the wake of the
\nmedia's liberalization, since 1998. At first, this seems positive
\n-- assuming that the media encourages democratization -- however,
\nflaws in the new election system will likely ensure the political
\ndomination of those with big money.<\/p>\n
Law 12\/2003 on the electoral system stipulates in chapter 73,
\narticle 1, that the electronic and print media must give equal
\nopportunities to electoral participants -- to publish the details
\nof their campaign. Article 2 stipulates that electronic and print
\nmedia should give electoral participants the equal opportunity to
\nadvertise.<\/p>\n
Article 2, in particular, could potentially allow certain
\nparticipants to dominate the media in terms of airtime or printed
\nspace. The phrase "equal opportunity" -- an ideal concept --
\nneglects the fact that airtime or printed space is not free of
\ncharge.<\/p>\n
In general the mass media, particularly television, holds the
\npolicy -- not to differentiate between political and commercial
\nadvertising -- in short, they charge the same price regardless of
\ncontent. Thus, there is no difference between the public service
\nannouncements of non government organizations, the advertisements
\nof political parties or presidential campaigns, or soap
\ncommercials. Prime time broadcasting now costs between Rp 10
\nmillion and Rp 20 million for 30 seconds.<\/p>\n
Thus, only "rich" political parties will be able to afford TV
\ncampaigns, (just a daydream for small parties). The campaign-war
\nhas begun. Some parties have already started to block airtime. If
\na big party blocks two hours of prime time -- assuming 30 seconds
\ncosts Rp 15 million -- they will need some Rp 3.6 billion.<\/p>\n
There is obviously a wide gap between parties financially. A
\nsmall party with 2 million members may not be able to raise Rp
\n100 million to hold a simple meeting.<\/p>\n
Since the official end of the 32-year-old New Order regime in
\n1998, political and media liberalization progressed. Hundreds of
\nparties suddenly participated in the 1999 elections. "Reform" was
\ninterpreted as unlimited political expression. But our political
\nsystem seems unprepared, as indicated by larger-scale corruption
\n(no longer limited to the higher ranks of bureaucracy) and the
\nfailure to overcome many of the country's problems.<\/p>\n
For big parties, the 1999 elections were an important lesson,
\nas to win the war they had to compete with many small parties.
\nThis never happened under the New Order. The victor could be
\npredicted before the war started.<\/p>\n
Large parties then drew up many strategies to maintain their
\nposition -- mainly in the regulation making process. This is
\nevident from law no. 12\/2003. For example, a convict can become a
\npresidential candidate. Reform in this context just means that
\nbig parties can do anything they want.<\/p>\n
Media liberalization can be traced back to the establishment
\nof private television stations in the late 1980s. Now people can
\nchoose from 10 channels. The growth of private TV has also
\ncontributed to democratization; at least people are not limited
\nto TVRI, (although the state-owned channel has formally become a
\npublic-owned media).<\/p>\n
Ahead of the "democracy fiesta" of the 2004 elections, the
\nmajor priority for parties has become their budget for
\nadvertising.<\/p>\n
The implication is that the public will only be aware of the
\nbig parties with money. This is a "win-win" situation for big
\nparties -- they made the rules of the game through their
\ndomination in the legislature.<\/p>\n
If democracy means equal opportunity, there must be rules to
\nguarantee equality in media expression. If it has been proved
\nthat capital handicaps some parties, we need to reassess how the
\npolitical arena operates.<\/p>\n
Thus, it is very important to limit the advertising quota of
\nparties. As Karl-Heinz Nassmacher wrote, "money strengthens
\npolitical influence for those who have it, or those who
\ndistribute it". With no regulation, Indonesian democracy will be
\nsimply a matter of money.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/democracy-fiesta-and-profits-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}