Campaign rules OK

Election campaigns in Indonesia are a time, indeed probably the only time, when the three political groups contesting the polls touch base with the electorate. At no other time do they enjoy so much free access to people at the grassroots because the political system still bars them from setting up offices below regency level. The present "floating mass" system virtually rules out party politics at the grassroots level, except during the 25- day campaigning period before polling day.

Besides providing them with a chance to sell, or rather yell, their programs and slogans, the campaign period in the past has been used by the contestants to encourage voters to speak their minds, as well as to let off steam. Once every five years, the voice of the masses is aired, and heard.

It is no exaggeration to state that the outdoor mass rallies that have characterized past election campaigns were the rare occasions when democracy in Indonesia really became alive. In terms of the functions they served, the campaigns have been more important than the voting itself, given the predictability of the election outcome. The outdoor rallies helped validate the official description of general elections as a "fiesta of democracy".

With the 1997 general election fast approaching, some concerns have been expressed about the potential excesses of outdoor rallies. Like any mass gathering, they could disrupt peace and public order. With these concerns in mind, President Soeharto has asked the National Council for Defense and Security to draft a new set of campaign rules in time for the upcoming election.

There is certainly a strong case for insisting on a more orderly campaign. Outdoor rallies in the past often caused massive traffic congestion, gridlocking entire cities, with all the imaginable consequences. We don't need to look far for an example. The July 27 riot in Central Jakarta had its origins in mass gatherings.

While the security concerns are valid, the new campaign regulations must not destroy the very objective of the campaign, or the functions that it has served in past elections. The contestants should not be deprived of the only time they have unimpeded access to the electorate, and the voters must not be denied their rare chance to air their aspirations, or concerns and grievances that may have been pent up for up to five years.

Unfortunately, none of the alternatives proposed match the various functions that outdoor rallies have provided. Indoor dialogs, proposed by Golkar and welcomed by the council, have a strong appeal as it suggests interactive communication between contestants and the electorate. But its effectiveness is likely to be limited. An indoor venue can only pack in so many people at a time, far fewer than a rally in a park. The atmosphere will not necessarily be as conducive for people to speak freely. And given the doubts about the ability of our politicians in communicating with the masses, a dialog campaign may well turn into a monolog. Yelling campaign slogans at outdoor rallies may not be a very effective means of communication either, but at least, it draws a response from the crowd. It still beats a boring long diatribe. An effective dialog usually requires the participants to be on the same wavelength, in this case for the audience to have the same intellectual level as the speakers. This again cuts the majority of the people in Indonesia out of any intellectual political dialog.

For all practical purposes, outdoor rallies, despite their shortcomings, are still the most effective method of election campaigning in Indonesia, at least for the 1997 poll. By all means, we need to address the security and public order concerns, but let us not kill democracy in the process.