Controversy besets election bill, political conservatism

By Mulyana W. Kusumah

JAKARTA (JP): Debates on the bill concerning general elections have been going on within and outside the House of Representatives (DPR) amid systematic attempts by certain groups to sustain the political privileges they enjoyed during the rule of Soeharto's New Order administration.

The DPR special committee for political bills, for example, came to an agreement on Nov. 26 that the proportional representation system would be adopted for the election to be held in 1999.

The choice of the PR system was a repeat of what happened some 30 years ago, when major political parties such as the Indonesian Nationalist Party (PNI) and Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) rejected the district system proposed in an Army seminar in 1966 on the grounds that the Indonesian people are not yet ready to adopt such a system.

Putting forward different reasons in a similar vein, the House's four factions -- the ruling party Golkar, the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI), the United Development Party (PPP) and the Armed Forces (ABRI) -- rejected the proposed district system as set forth in the bill on general elections, which had been drawn up by a Ministry of Home Affairs team. Golkar, for example, argued that in the past general elections people were familiar only with the symbols of the contending parties.

According to the elucidation of the bill on general elections, a combination of district and proportional systems will be used for the election of DPR members and local councilors who are based in electoral districts. The mapping of the districts will be based on the existing maps of regencies, municipalities or other administrative units of the same level, and their population figures. One administrative unit can be further divided up if its population is more than 600,000.

This elucidation also postulates that the proposed district system will have a positive aspect in that it will allow people to determine their own candidates and that a candidate collecting the majority of votes will win a seat in their electoral district.

Under the proposed district system, the relationship between the people and their representatives will be closer. This close relationship would strongly guarantee the establishment of the representatives' accountability to their constituents.

The use of the proportional representation system for the 1999 general election means the repetition of the election pattern of the past six general elections under the Soeharto regime. As such, it may reproduce the values and practices prevailing in past elections, some of which are as follows:

* The PR system will be oriented to the maintenance of the old political format which manipulated the working mechanism of a party system in order to reinforce the government which is a long way from public control, sustain the low accountability of the representatives and obstruct the improvement of the voters' sense of identification with their representatives and the government resulting from the election.

* There will be no open and stiff competition among candidates in each electoral district. People's real political support of the candidates will be based on quasi-support of certain political parties.

* The chairperson of a political party will have greater sovereignty than the voters because he will have the authority to determine which of the candidates will become DPR members or local councilors in accordance with his political objectives.

This matter will certainly obstruct the process of internal democratization within a political party and will enable its leaders to develop their own reward system which may not be in line with the aspirations of the constituents. In this context, a candidate, through corrupt, collusive or nepotistic practices, can assure election as a legislator or local councilor without having to compete with party peers or with candidates from other political parties as long as he or she secures strong access to the party leaders.

Another political tendency which may arise is the recalling of legislators whose performance is considered out of line with the political wishes of the party leaders. The independence of the legislators in voicing critical aspirations individually may at any time be put at risk. * The adoption of the PR system will obviously entail great risks, especially if the upcoming general election does not simultaneously bring about three tiers of people's representation (DPR and councilors at provincial and regency/mayoralty levels) on the grounds that simultaneous election of the three tiers will be highly burdensome to the administration of the election, while the preparation period is quite brief.

Because candidates under the PR system will be more representative of their political parties rather than their constituents, aspirations of the regions for the introduction of the widest regional autonomy possible or for the establishment of a federal system of administration will be less accommodated and the people will have an obviously much weakened sense of being represented.

* Because competition among political parties will be more dominant than that among candidates, there are wider opportunities for leaders of bureaucracy-related organizations such as Korpri for civil servants and Dharma Wanita for their wives to encourage their members to support a certain political party and also for political institutions of the military, such as Babinsa, to recommend that local people support a certain political party.

* The people's political control over election processes will be hindered even at an early stage such as in the composition of lists of candidates, which is fully entrusted to political parties, and the appointment of members of election executive committees.

Aside from the reasons mentioned above, the reason put forward by DPR factions in rejecting the adoption of a district system in the upcoming election -- that the people are not yet ready for such a system -- has indeed belittled Indonesian voters, whose political knowledge, understanding, awareness and capacity have now been much improved in comparison to the conditions of a few decades ago.

The factions seem to be bogged down in their "political conservatism", ignoring dynamic political aspirations and rejecting progressive ideas towards the institutionalization of democracy.

It is more obvious, therefore, that in such a situation there is greater urgency now for reinforcing external institutions of election supervision such as the Independent Committee for General Election Monitoring (KIPP), which will not only monitor ballot casting and counting, but will also, along with other pro- democracy forces, continue to fight for the prerequisites for a free and democratic election.

Of course, the credibility and acceptability of such external supervisory institutions will be determined by how well they have passed the political tests they have been put to because their activities are obviously not "seasonal" and not intended to seek popularity when a choice of a concrete political role fails to be formulated. Neither are these activities simply intended to find a new political stage.

The writer is secretary-general of the Indonesian Independent Committee for General Election Monitoring.