A damper on a feast
A damper on a feast
The recent ruling announced by Waluyo, the deputy secretary
general of the General Elections Institute, that all campaign
television speeches broadcast in the run-up to the upcoming
general elections must be screened by the government before they
go on air, sounds familiar.
"The screening team will ensure that the speeches do not
undermine (the state ideology) Pancasila, slander government
officials or attack other election contestants," Waluyo said.
We heard that familiar line five years ago. We also heard it
ten, fifteen and twenty years ago -- every time a general
election was to be held. In short, it is not a new rule. What is
new, though, is perhaps the fact that this time the General
Elections Institute is audaciously assuring the public that the
screening is in no way a form of censorship -- which is, of
course, an absurd statement since to any sensible mind, screening
in any manner is by definition a form of censorship.
It must be admitted that given the grave impact of the riots
which have been occurring in alarming frequency recently, one can
easily understand why the authorities are wary of any expressions
of discontent or indignation that are made in public. The same,
of course, goes for public gatherings, which in a worst-case
scenario might become unmanageable and lead to public unrest.
The imposition of restrictions and censorship have somehow
cast a shadow on the upcoming general election, which the
government likes to dub a "festival of democracy". But surely a
festival in which any of the merry-making parties are barred from
exercising their basic rights, such as the freedom of speech and
expression, can hardly be called a festival of democracy,
particularly if any of the parties -- particularly the less
influential ones -- will be disadvantaged by the ruling.
But fear of possible unrest aside, the screening of the
campaign broadcast speeches plus the ban on outdoor rallies is
seen by many as an indication that the government is determined
to ensure a "successful" general election in May and that
whatever means that are necessary to ensure success must be
taken.
It is also within this context that the government last week
issued a decree to restrict major gatherings by political and
social organizations in the run-up to the May general election --
contrary to statements made by certain government officials last
year.
These restrictions will surely disillusion many of the twenty
million odd first-time voters who are looking forward to
exercising their birthright as citizens of a free and democratic
country by going to the polls.
Considering the present political balance in this country,
there can be no doubt about the outcome of the upcoming
elections. We fear, however, that the facts that have just been
mentioned, plus the apathy that exists among wide sections of the
public at large -- any discerning observer can feel it by
comparing the present mood to that prevailing during previous
elections -- makes it doubtful whether one can truly call the
upcoming national poll a "success".
Under the circumstances, as far as the minor participants in
the event are concerned, the best thing that could happen is for
the General Elections Institute to issue some supplemental
decrees that could soften the rigor of the restrictions imposed
and thereby open the door to all the participating parties to
truly partake in this "festival of democracy".