After not voting, what's next?

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.