Elections really are the cheapest alternative<\/p>\n
Kevin Evans,<\/p>\n
Elections really are the cheapest alternative<\/p>\n
At a recent Idul Fitri gathering a friend declared that
\n"elections are really expensive. Is it worth it?"<\/p>\n
I suddenly recalled the days before we could use elections
\nto change a government. In 1998 the President of the day was
\ndutifully re-elected by every single participating member of
\nthe National Assembly (MPR). No questions, no dissent, not
\neven an expressions of concern.<\/p>\n
The uncompetitive and tediously stage crafted elections from
\n1971 to 1997 produced a political leadership that could
\nquarantine itself from the real world in which the rest of
\nIndonesia lived. Outside this quarantine zone inflation was
\nshooting towards 100%, the economy was collapsing 15%,
\nunemployment and poverty were skyrocketing as factory, shop and
\nother business' collapsed under 50% interest rates and no demand.
\nShops were running short of supplies as hoarding took place (even
\nbefore the looting).<\/p>\n
The problem was that to change leaders, people had to shake
\nthe country to its foundations, destroy the economy and threaten
\nthe social and political fabric of the nation. Even in crude
\nmoney terms, the cost of the competitive 1999 elections was
\nactually less than the loss in value of just one mid-sized
\ncompany on the Jakarta stockmarket.<\/p>\n
What an absurdly extravagant, expensive and painful way to
\nchange a government! The costs of changing the government back
\nin the mid-1960s was arguably even more expensive, certainly in
\nterms of the loss of life.<\/p>\n
Frankly an election that used gold plated ballot papers would
\nstill be far cheaper than the costs of having to destroy the
\neconomy and leave untold numbers of citizens dead and traumatised
\nif all that was desired was to change the government<\/p>\n
As a result I think it fair to say that competitive, (free and
\nfair), elections is a far cheaper way to say to a leader or other
\npoliticians "it's time to enjoy your retirement" than to resort
\nto other options this country has been forced to use far too
\nfrequently throughout history.<\/p>\n
One question often asked cynically, particularly from the
\nurban intellectuals, is "will these elections produce change?"
\nSetting aside the issue of instant gratification, that is take
\nelections mix in free press, then presto instant just and
\nprosperous democracy, this question can only be answered by
\nconsidering a few other questions.<\/p>\n
The most basic question to be considered is whether 140
\nmillion voters want change or not? For example will the voters
\nbe happy to take their Rp 50,000 (or whatever the going rate next
\nyear will be) before polls open and vote for the party that
\nprovided such "generosity"? How many voters recognise that
\nelections are not festivals of democracy and that the impact of
\nwho they vote for can have a 5 year impact on their lives?
\nAdditionally will people who have been thrown out of their make
\nshift houses as part of the Governor's cleansing of Jakarta vote
\nfor the parties that re-elected this Governor? Will the coffee
\nshop radicals who enjoy deriding the existing and potential
\nleaders and political parties offer themselves for public office?<\/p>\n
Unfortunately democracy is not such an easy option. It is
\nalso not the "soft option" that the militarist mind-set would
\nhave you believe. Democracy is the hard option for citizens
\nbecause it makes you responsible. It is not only leaders who are
\nresponsible and accountable. As a voter you are responsible
\ndirectly for who is or is not elected. It is simply not good
\nenough to prattle on about "primordialism", poverty or low levels
\nof education etc in order to evade responsibility and justify
\nresults.<\/p>\n
One way to evade from responsibility is to boycott the vote.
\nThe Golput (vote boycott) phenomena made great sense in an era
\nwhen politics was restricted and government controlled. Indeed
\nit was a powerful form of subversion. However in this era it is
\nmerely self-defeating. Yes voters have the right not to vote.
\nBut the catch is you can't actually opt out. This is because not
\nvoting is also a vote. In not voting, your "vote" will actually
\nstrengthen the party or candidate you most dislike.<\/p>\n
It is very simple. There are two candidates. You don't like
\neither. Of course there is one you dislike slightly more than the
\nother. By not voting you actually provide support to the other,
\nas you would have voted for the first one had you voted.<\/p>\n
Just ask the French Socialists. In the last elections they
\ndecided to stay at home for the first round of the Presidential
\nElection. The candidate to benefit from this was the extreme
\nright winger, who came in second and was able to participate in
\nthe final round. The ultimate beneficiary was the moderate right
\nwinger as the Socialists were forced to vote for him to stop the
\nextreme right winger from being elected.<\/p>\n
The bottom line of democracy is that you can't escape
\nresponsibility, unless of course you escape democracy. Oh yes
\nthe good ol' days, when the Great Leader made all the decisions
\nand we simply kept our mouth's shut. The good ol' days of
\npredictable tranquility when a thick blanket of political
\ncensorship covered the ocean of Indonesia -- blissful and noble
\nignorance. The good ol' days when we knew the system was corrupt
\nand that the official government structures bore scant
\nresemblance to the real structures of power. In seeking refuge
\nin nostalgia do recall that it took at least 10 years to
\nestablish the good ol' days system and even then it was only 2
\noil booms that lubricated the way for the system to survive as
\nlong as it did.<\/p>\n
In this regard the emergence of Indonesia's own version of
\nSARS (Sindrom Aku Rindu Soeharto -- the I Miss Soeharto Syndrome)
\nis a call to go Back to the Future. Sadly this is only possible
\nin movies. Even were the great Soeharto back as President would
\nthe New Order be back overseeing 7% growth a year, investment
\nflooding in and freedom from freedom back in vogue? Of course
\nnot. Immunity to SARS begins with accepting that the future of
\nthe country is in your hands, not some messianic Great Leader.<\/p>\n
The answer to the question of whether the elections will
\nproduce change is "does the electorate want change?" If they
\ndon't then the elections will not, and should not, produce
\nchange. After all free and fair elections reflect the will of
\nthe electorate. Alternatively if they do vote for change, then
\nyes the elections may well produce change.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/elections-really-are-the-cheapest-alternative-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}