Poll watchdog fears groundless<\/p>\n
A number of people set up an Independent Election Monitoring
\nCommittee this month with an eye to next year's election.
\nPolitical scientist Riswandha Imawan argues that the apprehension
\nexpressed by some parties is unfounded.<\/p>\n
YOGYAKARTA (JP): The nation entered a new stage in its
\npolitical history when a group of people set up the Independent
\nElection Monitoring Committee on March 15, 1996. The birth of the
\ngroup, aptly labeled a pro-democracy movement, evoked prompt
\nresponse. Those who have profited from the current system
\nexpressed strong disapproval, calling the committee's existence
\nunconstitutional. Those who feel politically disadvantaged,
\nhowever, quickly rallied to support the new committee.<\/p>\n
A third group, comprised of mainly intellectuals and political
\nanalysts, are taking a neutral position and are investigating the
\nreason behind the committee's birth, its purposes and what it can
\naccomplish. I belong to this group.<\/p>\n
In my opinion, there are two major reasons why the committee
\ncame into existence. First, the widespread arrogance of power
\nwhich is a reflection of the deterioration of the understanding
\nof political ethics. Second, there has been no progress in the
\nway elections are carried out over the past five elections.<\/p>\n
The arrogance of power is all too obvious in the way the
\nruling political grouping Golkar garners the masses' support
\nthrough what they call their \"Meet the Cadres\" program. The media
\nreports on this program have been so intense that it has given
\nrise to a popular expression of \"not a single day passes without
\nsupport garnering\".<\/p>\n
This political maneuvering, the sole purpose of which is to
\npreempt the upcoming 1997 campaign period, has seemingly been
\nignored by the government. This obviously provokes powerful
\nreactions from other political groupings. Such electioneering can
\nonly backfire on Golkar. The recent spontaneous rally by hundreds
\nof supporters of the less influential United Development Party
\nand the Indonesian Democratic Party should remind Golkar to watch
\nits step.<\/p>\n
Many more actions reflecting the arrogance of the ruling elite
\nare still fresh in my mind. Some examples are the construction of
\na multibillion rupiah house for the Central Java governor, the
\npurchase of luxurious cars for regents of South Sulawesi, the
\nconstruction of a massive swimming pool for the Bekasi Regent and
\nthe statement made by the mayor of Surabaya that he wielded the
\npower to destroy local reporters.<\/p>\n
If we hold that politics should be based on the principles of
\ndemocracy, then a prerequisite is the idea of give and take. A
\ntrue democrat would tell his rival: \"I disagree with every word
\nyou say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.\"<\/p>\n
The Indonesian people who claim to uphold the values of mutual
\ncooperation (gotong royong), familism and consensus should stand
\nfast to this principle.<\/p>\n
During the past five elections, however, attitudes of distrust
\nand the power approach have gradually replaced the elements of
\ngive and take. Typical Golkar rhetoric like, \"to win the 1997
\nElection for the sake of the unity of the nation based on state
\nideology Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution\" and for the sake of
\nthe \"continuation of the national leadership of the New Order,\"
\n(Kompas March 18, 1996) drive home the message that other
\npolitical forces threaten the nation's unity. They also imply
\nthat other political forces do not belong to the New Order. Such
\nrhetoric is clearly misleading and detrimental to political
\neducation.<\/p>\n
Along with the deceptive rhetoric, reports of vote rigging by
\none of the three political parties are ample. This includes the
\ndisplay of only one of the symbols of the three contestants, and
\nthe deliberate punching of an additional hole to render votes
\nbelonging to other groups invalid. Such behavior has smashed the
\ncommitment of the New Order government to empower the people
\nthrough democracy and led by the wisdom of deliberation among
\nrepresentatives.<\/p>\n
I believe the crux of the problem is that the entire election
\nis administered by the state. They control the regulation and
\noperation of elections. The state has the ability to force its
\nwill and put its bureaucracy in a very advantageous position.<\/p>\n
Despite the successful staging of elections since 1971, many
\nthings need to be corrected. Public participation is needed to
\ncorrect the problems, since it is the people's votes that are at
\nstake. It is true that this can be done through the state
\nelection monitoring agency, but, keeping in mind the power of
\nstate-corporatism in Indonesia, the impartiality of the agency
\nshould be doubted.<\/p>\n
The new independent committee can help erode these doubts. It
\nwishes to convey to the public that elections are still worth
\nwhile. The government should have no qualms about accepting it.
\nThe committee can even strengthen the concept that elections are
\nrun on the principles of democracy. On top of this, it is
\ndoubtful the committee could monitor the tens of thousands of
\nvoting booths spread across the country. Supervising the transfer
\nof the ballot boxes to each regional election committee would be
\neven harder.<\/p>\n
So why all this fuss about the committee? I believe the fuss
\nstems from the fear that the committee, like Namfrel in the
\nPhilippines and Pollwatch in Thailand, will lead to the downfall
\nof a political regime. This is an unfounded anxiety because
\nIndonesia has different social conditions and practices different
\ndemocratic principles than the two other Southeast Asian states.<\/p>\n
The writer is a political science lecturer at Gadjah Mada
\nUniversity in Yogyakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/poll-watchdog-fears-groundless-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}