To vote or not to vote?<\/p>\n
With legislative elections less than three months away, the
\nhurdles in the way of smooth and orderly polls appear to be
\nlooming increasingly large on Indonesia's political landscape. As
\nof yesterday, for example, only 1,812 -- or less than 20 percent
\n-- of the total 8,871 legislative candidates registered with the
\nGeneral Elections Commission (KPU) had managed to pass the first
\nmandatory screening as prescribed by electoral law.<\/p>\n
That, however, should surprise no one given the fact that as
\nthe deadline approached last weekend, all of the 24 political
\nparties eligible to contest the elections came rushing forward to
\nregister their candidates with the commission at the eleventh
\nhour, led by the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).
\nNot surprisingly either, the Commission attributed the
\ncandidates' dismal performance in passing its screening to one or
\nmore of three main reasons: Failure to show a certificate of good
\nhealth, failure to declare personal wealth, and failure to
\nproduce a certificate attesting to a lack of a criminal record
\nissued by a district court in the place where the candidate
\nresides.<\/p>\n
It takes little imagination to envisage the frustration of the
\ncandidates having to endure this country's infamous bureaucratic
\nred tape. Indeed, there have been many reports of legislative
\ncandidates resorting to forging fake university diplomas and ID
\npapers to make it through the screening procedures. As a
\nconsequence, the General Elections Commission has in recent days
\nbeen badgered by protests and requests for the deadline to be
\npushed back to give newly formed parties more time to make their
\nexistence known and introduce their political platforms and
\nprograms to the public. The commission, for its part, has
\npersisted in its stance of sticking to the timetable set for it
\nfor fear that any delay on its part would upset the whole general
\nelection schedule, with all of the risks this would imply.<\/p>\n
If all this sounds exasperating enough, consider the balloting
\nprocedures that are prescribed by the General Elections Law
\npassed in recent months by the House of Representatives. The new
\nlaw does away with the old, familiar system of one general
\nelection to select members the members of the House of
\nRepresentatives (DPR) and the People's Consultative Assembly
\n(MPR), with the election of the country's president and vice
\npresident being left to the latter. Voters simply punched a hole
\nthrough the symbol of the party of their choice and left the
\npolitical decision-making to the legislators nominated by these
\nparties.<\/p>\n
Following the fall of the Soeharto regime in 1998 and the
\nsubsequent dawning of the reform era and democratization,
\nhowever, sufficient pressure was brought to bear by the public on
\nthe national legislature to make it comply, at least in part,
\nwith demands for the amendment of the 1945 Constitution -- a
\nlegacy of the 1945 independence revolution, which its critics say
\nleaves the door wide open for abuses by dictators and autocrats.
\nHence, a new system of direct elections was introduced.<\/p>\n
From the democratic point of view, the new system, which for
\nthe first time in this country's 58-year history gives the voters
\nthe right to directly elect their president, is obviously a big
\nstep forward. For millions of voters, especially in rural areas,
\nthe new procedures are fairly complicated. In the upcoming
\nlegislative elections, which are slated to be held on April 5,
\nvoters can punch a hole in the symbol of the party of their
\nchoice as well as in the picture of the candidate they favor.<\/p>\n
Lest unschooled voters get too confused and make mistakes,
\nhowever, the law still allows voters to simply punch the party
\nsymbol of their choice and leave the rest to the party, as was
\nthe case in the old system -- a provision that has caused some
\nfears that the new system will, after all, be no different from
\nthe old, considering that millions of politically uneducated
\nIndonesians might simply not know or care enough about the
\npersonalities listed to make a well-considered and educated
\nchoice. Add to this the torrent of reports of old-style
\npoliticians dominating the current Indonesian body politic, and
\none can easily understand the calls raised in some quarters of
\nthe reform camp to abstain from voting.<\/p>\n
It is worth noting, however, that the idea of abstention was
\noriginally popularized in the Soeharto era when democracy was
\nnon-existent and voting for either of the three officially
\nsanctioned parties was simply a ritual designed to lend
\nlegitimacy to the strongman's autocratic rule. Polls were heavily
\nrigged to favor the then-ruling party, Golkar, and voters were
\nleft with no choice but to toe the government line.<\/p>\n
Things have substantially changed since then. It is not too
\nfarfetched to suggest that under the currently prevailing
\ncircumstances, abstaining could well upset the reform timetable,
\nrather than accelerate it. In spite of all its shortcomings, it
\nmust be said that the General Elections Commission has so far
\ndone a pretty good job of getting the process of democratization
\nmoving. Our job as good citizens concerned about the future of
\nthe nation should be to assist in expediting this process by
\ncasting our votes responsibly and in full consciousness of the
\nconsequences involved.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/to-vote-or-not-to-vote-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}