After not voting, what's next?

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): "You don't have to vote for Golkar, but you must vote!"

This statement has been often repeated lately. This sounds logical, logical indeed, but is it correct?

No! The expression "You must vote!" is incorrect. Voting is a right and not an obligation. There is no basis whatsoever for anyone to say that you must vote. The correct form of expression is "Please kindly vote." It should be a request or a plea, but not a command.

Speculations, discussions, and analyses about nonvoting have increased lately. Never before has a nonvoting phenomenon received so much interest from the public. In the 1971 general election, the nonvoting phenomenon -- known at that time as the Golput (White Group) phenomenon -- was also an item of public discussion, but it was primarily limited to a small circle of young intellectuals and government bureaucrats, especially officials within the Department of Domestic Affairs.

What does nonvoting actually signify?

Opinion differs in this regard, ranging from those who see it as a kind of subversion to those who consider it an act of political protest. Makmur Keliat, in his eloquent article in the Jakarta Post (May 5, 1997), sees in nonvoting behavior a sign of political disobedience. Helmut Krahmer, on the other hand, sees this behavior as a political attitude of resignation and voice of desperation (in his letter to the Post, May 5, 1997).

Which perception is correct? Both may be correct. As I see it, nonvoting can have many meanings. It depends upon personal circumstances of each group of nonvoters. But whatever the circumstances, I do not think that nonvoting can be regarded as subversive behavior. I have not yet met a person or group of people who frankly admit that he, she or they are not going to vote in the upcoming general election, or intend to do so with the purpose of "completely destroying, ruining, undermining, or overthrowing" the government -- these are the various classifications of subversion.

The people I have met who admit that they are not going to vote are generally people with no such grandiose intentions. They are people with good intentions about the country, but are very disappointed with the way politics have been handled in this country.

I do not claim to know about a broad spectrum of would-be nonvoters. I have met with perhaps just a hundred of such people. As far as I can see, their motivations for not voting range from personal loyalty to Megawati to disbelief in the present political system. This is quite a broad range.

Those with deep personal loyalty to Megawati do not see any sense in voting in the next general election, because they will not be able to vote for a political group they believe in. They reason that since their leader and their party have been robbed of their rights to be represented, participation in the general election has become meaningless to them.

At this point they ask, "What is the use of participating in something which does not have any meaning for me?" Is this disobedience? Maybe. Is this an act of desperation? Again, maybe. But it can also be seen as an act of sabotage, that is sabotaging the general election, but not undermining the country.

At a greater extreme, I met people who intend to avoid polling stations on May 29 for a very ethical reason. They do not want to be part of a scheme which, from their perspective, is full of deceit. They point out a number of things in defense of their position.

First, the fact that the ruling group had begun its campaign much earlier than the other two contestants. This was under the guise of official trips by government officials who were all acting on behalf of the ruling party. This is a clear indication that the principle of fair play had been grossly violated.

Second, the fact that government officials are required to go to polling stations near government offices is another indication that the government has no intention in giving full psychological freedom to government officials in expressing their political choice.

Third, the color war that went on in Central Java is an indication of attempts to subject the general population to psychological conditioning, that there is only one color -- yellow -- the campaign color of Golkar.

Fourth, various regulations about campaigning are tantamount to blocking the other two political groups from presenting their respective campaign platform to audiences.

And fifth, the screening of nominees for legislative seats by government agencies is another indication of the government's intention to control the next House of Representatives.

This list can be extended ad infinitum. Based on such a list of evidence, plus the perception that we have not made any significant progress during the past 10 to 20 years in developing a genuine democratic system, people conclude that participation in this general election is just an act of preserving a nondemocratic system.

These are the two extremes. And between these two, there is a whole range of nuances. What I see within this spectrum is a continuum of passively withholding support of the present election system, rejection of the present system, and an active search for a new, more democratic system -- from a passive act of desperation to the beginning of the active search for an alternative.

Helmut Krahmer's warning that nonvoting can be counterproductive, and that it can deprive nonvoters of an opportunity to participate in political discussion, deserves serious attention. To avoid this pitfall, each and every would-be nonvoter must decide for himself or herself, what he or she is going to do after not voting. This requires serious thinking and enlightened discussions. While it is all right to be allergic towards campaign slogans and indoctrination, we should not stop there. We must try to actively create opportunities for genuine political discussion.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.