2004 election: New bottle, same content, room for change

Endy M. Bayuni, Deputy Chief Editor, The Jakarta Post, Cambridge, Massachusetts

The 2004 election is just around the corner, but many, especially those in the reformist camp, have already dismissed this important national event as nothing but a political charade. They are probably right insofar as the outcome is concerned, and most polls have confirmed their cynicism.

However, this year's election should also be about the process as much as the result. The outcome may not significantly advance the national reform agenda, especially if the polls prove to be right, but the process still marks a milestone in this nation's march toward a truly democratic society.

We hailed 1999 as the first democratic election in over four decades. That political system survived the first five years, which, for a nascent democracy, is an achievement in itself.

Now we look forward to the second democratic election, and can take further pride that we have made many significant improvements, at least institutionally, for us to be able to say that 2004 will be better than 1999. It is progress that we should cherish, no matter how cynically we may view the outcome.

Understandably, democracy is not simply about institution- building. That is probably the easiest part of the building of a nation on democratic principles. Democracy, ultimately, must be about our attitudes, values, behavior and traditions. If we have not made significant changes in these areas, it is because such changes take time.

Furthermore, it is not only politicians who must change. Voters too must also go through this process, because, ultimately, they determine the outcome of a democratic election.

One valuable lesson we have learned these past five years is that to change people's behavior is a time-consuming process. Much of the reform that this nation is seeking is about changing behavior. Tolerance, respecting other people's views, the rule of law and the use of debate rather than force, are some of the characteristics that we have yet to develop, which would support a functioning democracy.

These are changes that can only be effected through education. Tinkering with the institutional setup may help a little in promoting these changes. Frustrating as it may seem, we can change only as quickly as the slowest members of our society.

Still, at the very least, when it comes to democratic elections, we have already created the necessary institutional framework. And we have come quite a long way these last five years in improving and strengthening that framework.

It is a case of a new bottle with its content essentially unchanged. As a nation, we have discarded the old bottle and come up with a new, modified and improved bottle that shapes the way we govern this country. But it is a new bottle filled with the same content.

Credit must go to the honorable members of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) and House of Representatives who worked tirelessly in building the democratic institutions these last five years.

The MPR has come out with a series of amendments to the 1945 Constitution that lay down the basis for a more democratic nation. The House has also come out with newly improved and more democratic electoral legislation. They may not be perfect documents, but they will do.

Lest we forget, the changes are so significant, compared with the 1999 elections, that some are worth listing here:

o This is the first time that people will directly elect the president and vice president. In 1999, the MPR elected the president/vice president and this led to ugly horse-trading that reflected more the power equation and bargaining skills of politicians than the wishes of the electorate.

o The Regional Representative Council (DPD), a senate-like body, will be set up to give regions a greater voice in national affairs, further strengthening the position of the regions vis-a- vis the central government.

o The MPR will comprise the House and the DPD. All members will be elected via democratic elections. In 1999, some MPR members were appointed, including those from the Indonesian Military/National Police factions.

o The military and police are relinquishing their representative seats, formally ending their role in practical, day-to-day politics, after this year's election.

o There will be a greater connection between voters and representatives, although they still vote for parties rather than candidates in the case of electing House members. This connection is full for DPD members because they vote for candidates.

o A General Elections Commission (KPU) has been set up that is far more independent and hopefully more credible than the one we had in 1999.

o Tighter regulation on the financing of political parties and election campaigns has been introduced to minimize the likelihood of vote buying.

These may not be perfect, and probably fall short of expectations, but they are certainly far better than the rules that governed the 1999 election. Ultimately, these laws are only as good as the people who implement and enforce them; this is where the KPU will face the severest test of whether it is truly independent and credible.

One major drawback to the present system is that, as in 1999, it still grants too much power to the political parties. The system has managed to screen the number of parties contesting the election from 48 in 1999 to 24 this year, but one gets the impression that real sovereignty is still not fully in the hands of the people, as the Constitution mandates. Some of it is still in the hands of the parties.

The parties still determine the candidates for the House of Representatives and have the power to recall those elected if they break ranks from party lines during their term in office.

Similarly, presidential and vice presidential candidates must be nominated by political parties, effectively ruling out independent, nonpartisan figures like respected Muslim scholar Nurcholish Madjid from entering the contest.

In spite of their immense power, the political parties do not control the outcome of the elections. They can only influence the process. Since they were given the job of amending the Constitution and drawing up electoral legislation, naturally, they did it in a way that favored their position and chance of winning the election.

We have come a long way from the Soeharto days when he essentially predetermined the election outcome, and organized the polls purely to give a veneer of legitimacy to his tyrannical rule. Those days, thankfully, are over. This year, as in 1999, voters, and no one else, will determine the outcome of the election.

Going back to the new bottle/old content metaphor, the task in hand for the reformist camp is to improve the content -- not for 2004, but for 2009. We cannot expect to see significant change in 2004, but we can certainly prepare for 2009. Reform, and the path to real democracy, are a never-ending struggle.

The writer is currently studying at Harvard University under fellowships jointly provided by the Nieman Foundation, Ford Foundation and the Asia Foundation.