Deciding by ballot

The recent decision taken by a vote in the House of Representatives was a new and refreshing development. The House plenary session failed to reach a unanimous decision because the United Development Party (PPP) faction insisted on proposing former finance minister Mar'ie Muhammad as a candidate for the position of chairman of the State Audit Board. The decision, taken by ballot, was valid and must thus be accepted by the United Development Party faction, which must learn to be a good loser. Taking decisions by a vote can be expected to occur again in the future.

Voting is a normal and acceptable way of taking a decision, although under the New Order regime it was avoided and even regarded as taboo. Political leaders, especially those in the Soeharto government, preferred to hold intensive deliberations in order to arrive at a unanimous, or almost unanimous, decision.

This rejection of the voting process was apparently designed to avoid contests between factions when important decisions that would affect the whole nation were being taken. Critics, however, have pointed out that this often resulted in artificial consent. Those who held different views, or those who opposed the majority view, had to accept the "accord" and thereby give up their control over policy matters. This model of decision making also reflected the fear of those in power that some of their own legislators might desert them by voting independently.

Nevertheless, we should think carefully before we decide to discard the principle of "deliberation toward consensus" in favor of voting. Indeed, we should put the principle of deliberation first so that a thorough comprehension of the debated issue is obtained by all concerned parties. In any country, voting is the choice of last resort after intensive lobbying fails to bring all the prevailing views together.

-- Bisnis Indonesia, Jakarta