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.