To vote or not to vote:
\nParticipation in the 2004 Legislative and Presidential Elections<\/p>\n
Muhammad Qodari
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
During the presidential election a few days ago, we witnessed
\nsomething that we had never seen previously. In a number of
\npolling stations across the country, the polling station
\ncommittees put on lucky draws for the voters who showed up at the
\npolling stations. A variety of prizes were on offer, ranging from
\nTV sets to goats.<\/p>\n
The media reported that polling station committees organized
\nthese lucky draws to attract the voters. Maybe the committees
\nassumed that the relatively low turnout by the voters during the
\nlegislative elections on April 5 meant that the voters would have
\nlittle interest in the presidential election.<\/p>\n
The committees were correct in their belief that the turnout
\nin the last legislative election was among the lowest in the
\nelectoral history in this country. Let's forget the figures for
\nthe New Order's seven elections as they were the result of a high
\ndegree of voter coercion. However, compared to the 1999 election
\n-- which was the first democratic election after the Soeharto era
\n-- voter turnout in 2004 was indeed poor.<\/p>\n
In 1999, of the 118 million registered voters, 92.7 percent
\ncast their ballots. In 2004, of 148 million registered voters,
\nonly 124.4 million, or 84 percent, showed up at the polling
\nstations. There is some debate as to why 23.6 million registered
\nvoters, or 16 percent, declined to exercise their constitutional
\nrights.<\/p>\n
Those advocating abstentionism have been quick to claim that
\nthe lower turnout reflects the revival of abstentionism.
\nAbstentionism here refers to people who choose not to vote
\nbecause they do not believe in the political system, government
\nor the political parties and politicians. The pro-abstention
\npeople even go so far as to declare 2004 as the year of victory
\nfor abstentionism as the combined percentage of abstainers and
\nthose who spoiled their ballots reached 23.3 percent. As we know,
\nthe Golkar Party, the winner of legislative elections, only
\nsecured 21.6 percent of the votes.<\/p>\n
Of course, the pro-abstention activists are mistaken. Most of
\nthose who did not show up at the polling stations did, in fact,
\nwant to vote. Surveys conducted by the Indonesian Survey
\nInstitute (LSI) and International Foundation for Electoral
\nSystems (IFES) prior to the legislative elections all showed a
\nconsistently high willingness to participate in the election --
\naround 96-97 percent.<\/p>\n
The reason why many people failed to show up on polling day
\nwas because they had not received voter cards or confirmation
\nletters from the local election administrators. They simply
\nthought that if they came to the polling stations, they would not
\nbe allowed to vote. Lack of voter cards and confirmation letters
\nwas a major problem the national election committee (KPU) failed
\nto tackle properly.<\/p>\n
Abstention activists were also wrong to include spoiled votes
\nwithin the abstention category. While it is possible that many
\nabstainers showed up to vote but deliberately spoiled their
\nballots, it is nevertheless logical to assume that the number of
\nthese was insignificant. For an abstainer, it does not make sense
\nfor him to come to the polling station and deliberately spoil his
\nballot when he can simply avoid the inconvenience by staying at
\nhome.<\/p>\n
The majority of invalid votes in the last legislative
\nelections were most likely due to the fact that the voting method
\nwas much more complicated that in previous elections. In the
\npast, all the voter had to do was to choose and perforate a party
\nsymbol. Now, apart from perforating the party symbol, the voters
\nare also required to perforate a particular candidate from the
\nlist offered by the party. Only perforating the candidate, or
\nperforating a candidate from a different party, will invalidate
\nthe ballot. This resulted in a significant number of invalid
\nvotes, with the actual percentage being 8.8 percent.<\/p>\n
To the surprise of many, the number of \"invalid\" votes in the
\npresidential election appears to have been slightly higher than
\nin the legislative elections. The official number has not yet
\nbeen announced by the KPU as ballot counting is still continuing.
\nHowever, monitoring groups (the NDI and LP3ES), say that the
\naverage number of invalid votes was 9.1 percent. These invalid
\nvotes were mainly due to the unintentional making of double
\nperforations by the voters. Later, the KPU announced that such
\nvotes would not longer be considered as invalid. So, it could
\nturn out that the real number of spoiled ballots in the
\npresidential election will be very low.<\/p>\n
As the ballot count is not yet finished, the official voter
\nturnout is not yet available. Surveys by the LSI and IFES prior
\nto the presidential election showed that public enthusiasm for
\nthe country's first direct presidential election was slightly
\nhigher than the legislative election -- 98 percent according to
\nthe LSI survey of June 20-24. Provided that the KPU has managed
\nto improve the mechanism for distributing voter cards and
\nconfirmation letters, the high rate of non-participation recorded
\nduring the legislative elections will not be repeated.<\/p>\n
In a TV interview on Wednesday afternoon, former U.S.
\npresident Jimmy Carter, who heads a group of foreign election
\nobservers, said that the turnout on July 5 was around 85 percent
\n-- double the sort of levels normally recorded in the U.S.
\nIndeed, despite administrative problems with voter registration,
\nIndonesia is still a country with one of the highest voter
\nturnout rates in the world.<\/p>\n
The question is, why are Indonesians so enthusiastic about
\nvoting? We included a question in our survey asking people why
\nthey wanted to participate in the election. In the case of the
\nlegislative elections, the two dominant answers were that voting
\nwas a citizen's obligation and that it was a citizen's right. In
\nthe case of the presidential election, another reason was
\nadduced, namely, the responsibility of choosing the nation's
\nleader.<\/p>\n
These responses are interesting. Reason number three is good
\nbut reason number one is rather worrisome. This is because people
\nwho vote due to a perceived obligation tend to be less critical
\nregarding which parties or which presidential candidates they
\nwill vote for.<\/p>\n
During the 30 years of New Order authoritarian rule, voting
\nwas never obligated by law. However people were virtually coerced
\ninto voting by the bureaucracy and the Army. The latter also
\nintervened greatly in the electoral process, from telling people
\nwhom to vote for to manipulating the ballot count. This has left
\na unfortunate legacy for Indonesian voters both now and in the
\nfuture -- a legacy that Indonesians must strive to fight against
\nusing continuous civic education.<\/p>\n
The writer is Director of Research at the Indonesian Survey
\nInstitute (LSI).<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/to-vote-or-not-to-vote-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}