Conditions for a fair general election

Conditions for a fair general election

By Makmur Keliat

SURABAYA (JP): Is there a correlation between the election and
legitimacy? Is it right to say that the election would strengthen
the government's legitimacy?

These questions are not far-fetched. In any political system,
the government is always faced with the problem of how to strike
a balance between authority and legitimacy. While the authority
deals with the establishment of power, legitimacy refers to the
people's acceptance of authority. Ideally, two concepts should be
in harmony. In this context, the election is usually
conceptualized as an instrument of authority and legitimacy.

Indonesian observer Mochtar Buchori said that considering a
variety of plausible reasons and nuances behind the nonvoting
phenomenon is necessary to create opportunities for genuine
political discussion. (The Jakarta Post May 16, 1997)

It is conventional wisdom that a multiparty election is a
symbol of democracy and a sacred utterance of people's
sovereignty. But the election alone does not assure the
government strong political legitimacy. One example is the
Philippines under Marcos' leadership.

Once oligarchies manipulated the implementation of democracy
in the country, Marcos proclaimed martial law in 1972. Shortly
after the end of martial law, Marcos held an election in 1980 and
his party Kilusang Bagong Lipunan returned to power in a
landslide victory. But prior to the election, he had already
established a new political format by creating a new
constitution, imposing a state corporate policy and replacing the
parliament institution with the Batasang Pambansa as the new
legislative power.

Marcos argued the political reforms were necessary to curtail
the power of oligarchies, to achieve stability and to realize a
new society for the Philippines. But the landslide victory only
meant the Filipinos continued to question the political
legitimacy of the Marcos government.

Shortly after the assassination of Benigno Aquino, the crisis
of legitimacy turned into a large scale street parliament which
was unprecedented in the history of the Philippines. Aquino's
assassination led to Marcos' ousting from his office in 1986.

There are several lessons one can learn from the collapse of
the Marcos government. The first lesson is that an election has
limits to sustain and legitimize the political system imposed by
the government. It is not enough to gain political support from
the majority of the people. What is more important is the
circumstances, including regulations enacted by the government,
under which the election is held.

Filipinos looked down on the outcome of the election since
Marcos "emasculated" the power source of his political opponents.
In economic terms, Marcos did this by appropriating some of their
business operations.

He also used bureaucracy as an instrument to disburse
development aid to rural areas. In doing so, he cut off their
political network with villagers. This meant most Filipinos did
not have a genuine commitment to the election and regarded it as
Marcos' cunning strategy to veil his ambition for power.

Another lesson relates to the concept of stability. Stability
is one of the determining variables to underpin democracy.
Democracy cannot evolve without stability. But stability can also
malfunction and become counterproductive to democracy if it is
used improperly.

By virtue of his remarkable wealth, it was difficult to erase
the impression of Marcos as a man not trying to fulfill his own
interests even after he was ousted from office. As a result,
Marcos' political reforms and "new society" had become baseless,
meaningless and nonargumentative.

For most Filipinos Marcos had "disarmed" the political weapon
of oligarchies to make himself a dominant oligarchy. The election
was regarded as unfair and held merely as a pretext and mask for
the survival of his regime and cronies rather than evolving a
genuine democratic political system.

This is not to say that the existing situation in Indonesia
reflects the case in the Philippines under Marcos. Historically,
economically and socially, Indonesia is distinct from the
Philippines. But, future danger looms if we take it for granted
that the election is equal to the legitimacy to govern.

The election and decision-making process are of equal
importance in gaining this legitimacy.

If we keep aloof from such deficiency, our election could turn
into a story of anguish. Not only would the election become a
profligacy in economic terms, but people would also not sincerely
respect the outcome of the election by staging a street
parliament and relying on violence instead of constitutionalism.

The writer is a lecturer at the Faculty of Social and
Political Sciences, Airlangga University, Surabaya.

Window: By virtue of his remarkable wealth, it was difficult to
erase the impression of Marcos as a man not trying to fulfill his
own interests even after he was ousted from office.