Security, ideas clash in campaign<\/p>\n
By Ramlan Surbakti<\/p>\n
SURABAYA (JP): Each general election has its own
\ncharacteristics in line with the existing political makeup. The
\nMay 29 election, the sixth under the New Order government, is no
\nexception.<\/p>\n
There are at least four distinctive characteristics that
\ndistinguish the May 29 poll from previous elections.<\/p>\n
First, the exclusion of a political force with strong
\nsupporters. A whole central board of the Indonesian Democratic
\nParty (PDI) whose chairperson was democratically elected, the
\nonly leader elected that way in the history of the New Order, has
\nbeen ousted from the political arena. This was done without \"rule
\nof law\" (reference to the party's constitution) but by \"rule by
\nusing the law\" (picking up a certain part of the constitution as
\na justification for the action) aimed at serving external
\ninterests.<\/p>\n
PDI's leadership rift is chronic. Its leadership has always
\nrivaled the one recognized by the government. But the
\ngovernment's recent move to dismiss a leader elected
\ndemocratically in a national conference as a rival leader is a
\nserious mistake.<\/p>\n
This is not only because the PDI central board enjoyed huge
\nsupport throughout the country, with numbers excelling those in
\nsupport of a previous rival board, but also because it was not a
\ncounter party. It was elected democratically according to the
\nparty's constitution.<\/p>\n
It is the first time in New Order history that a party's
\ncentral board, which has been elected democratically, has not
\nparticipated in the election campaign not because it opposes the
\ngovernment but because it was ousted from the political stage for
\nfear of becoming an alternative political force.<\/p>\n
It is not surprising that in PDI strongholds such as Surabaya,
\nMalang, Jember, Manado, Denpasar, Surakarta, Yogyakarta and
\nSemarang, the government-backed PDI central board faced
\ndifficulties in holding rallies due to supporters of the
\nMegawati-led PDI central board.<\/p>\n
Second, the government's concern over the substantial number
\nof people who choose to abstain from voting. Abstaining from
\nvoting is not a new phenomenon, but its widespread token
\nsignifies not only higher political awareness but also a moral
\naction.<\/p>\n
The government has taken at least four measures to curb the
\nspread of non-voting. First, to arrest and interrogate the people
\nwho advise others not to vote, as experienced by students of the
\nGadjah Mada and Jember universities. Second, TVRI newscasters
\nhave taken the time to appeal to the people to use their voting
\nright. Third, in speeches by government officials non-voters have
\nbeen called irresponsible citizens. Fourth, the appeal to
\nreligious and youth organizations to issue joint statements
\nurging people to use their voting right.<\/p>\n
The government's anxiety has stemmed from two factors. First,
\nan increase in the number of non-voters is considered a sign of
\ndeclining support for the regime and hence its legitimacy to
\nrule.<\/p>\n
Second, the success of the election is measured, among other
\nthings, by the total number of people using their right to vote
\nand the orderly way the election is held as a matter of prestige,
\nrespect and good conduct which benefits the future career of
\ngovernment officials.<\/p>\n
The third characteristic is the tight security surrounding the
\nelection and the threatening attitude toward those impeding it.
\nThis can be seen from the actions against mock rioters, shows of
\nforce, and the mobilization of troops including command troops.<\/p>\n
In western countries, this kind of measure falls into a mental
\nterror category because coercive measures can only be taken
\nagainst violators of the law and not against people's intention
\nand thoughts. The authorities have said it is better to prevent a
\nfire than put out a fire.<\/p>\n
And finally, the safety to organize and attend a rally has
\nbecome an overriding issue even though preparations to
\n\"safeguard\" the election have been made.<\/p>\n
The campaign's themes presented as a well-rehearsed \"monolog\"
\nand \"dialog\" are broadcast on public radio and television
\nstations or presented in public meetings. But the first nine days
\nof the 1997 election campaign have been marred by disturbances.<\/p>\n
Every day the media has reported disturbances by rival parties
\nsuch as the removal of party symbols, motorcades destroying or
\nrobbing property of motorists as well as blocking traffic,
\nclashes with security forces (like in Pasuruan) and the injury of
\nmore than 30 people.<\/p>\n
Even party supporters do not feel safe organizing public
\nrallies. But it does not seem to bother the younger generation,
\nparticularly those from the poorer communities who need an outlet
\nto vent their pent-up emotions over many years of hardship.<\/p>\n
They consult the campaign schedules not to avoid them but to
\njoin them. If this continues, it is likely the majority of
\ncitizens will grow to dislike election campaigns and may boycott
\nelection day.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer at Airlangga University, Surabaya.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/security-ideas-clash-in-campaign-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }