Discriminating campaign rules blamed for violence
The first week of the campaign period has been marred by violence. It has been argued that violence is a reflection of the public's discontent with today's social and political situation. Political scientist Yusril Ihza Mahendra of the University of Indonesia talks to The Jakarta Post about violence and the campaign.
Question: What do you think of the violence that has happened in the on-going nation-wide campaign?
Answer: Actually episodes of violence began about a year ago. It's because the two minority parties believe some of the campaign regulations disadvantage them. In this case the United Development Party (PPP) and the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI).
It's true that the PDI, for example, has been disadvantaged by internal conflict. Nevertheless, the fact that Golkar (the ruling party) has been campaigning for five years makes the other two parties feel uncomfortable.
It's therefore understandable that the PPP has decided to cancel its campaign schedule because they were unable to stand the pressure of too many restrictions.
Q: Can you name the regulations that do not advantage the parties?
A: The regulation on indoor dialog campaigning, along with all its restrictions is an example. This regulation deprives the parties from getting the maximum out of their campaign. Even in a seminar, for example, where most participants are intellectuals it's not always easy to strike a dialog.
In other words, it's difficult for most people, especially those of the grassroots, to talk about their basic problems in this situation.
When a top government official holds a spontaneous dialog with rural people, for example, those who have enough guts to ask questions are mostly the village heads. Yet, their questions are not that important. If they were, they were unlikely to be relevant for discussion in a dialog situation. They're concerned with their own immediate interests, not global ones.
Q: Why then is this type of regulation (dialog campaigning) applied? Is there a specific reason?
A: I happened to be one of the people involved in the discussions on campaign regulations. There had been a bitter debate -- between representatives of academics, the PPP and the PDI on one side and those of Golkar and the Armed Forces on the other -- about the regulation proposed by the National Defense and Security Council at that time.
There was so much input and so many arguments put forward by the academics, the PPP and PDI representatives to reject the proposed regulation. But, they all fell on deaf ears. Everything seemed to have been decided before the discussion took place.
I have no idea if there was a specific reason for applying the regulation but the Armed Forces representatives argued then that it was for security reasons based on previous experience.
Q: Now the facts seem to show the opposite result...
A: That's right. But compared to the 1992 election campaign we are still faring better, especially with security.
Had society been more critical, the dialog campaigning rule would have been more beneficial to both the PPP and PDI than to Golkar. In a dialog, participants can ask anything including about possible wrongdoings that may have been committed by Golkar. Such a dialog, therefore, places the two parties in an advantageous position. Yet, our society doesn't seem to be ready for such a stage.
Besides, there is a limited number of large indoor places so this type of activity will not reach many people. How many can an indoor stadium accommodate at a time? That's why dialog campaigning won't have a big impact for the political parties.
For these reasons I understand why the PPP finally decided to cancel their campaigns. You have to remember that Jakarta, however, is one of PPP's strongholds. If they feel they cannot reach their supporters through this once-in-five-years election campaign, why then they should do that? Golkar, on the other hand, doesn't need to do the same because they have been campaigning for five years.
Q: What effect could the cancellation have on the campaign?
A: It won't have a significant impact. As you see, the Jakarta PPP branch has been warned recently to do away with vehicle convoys. Such a convoy is indeed not avoidable. Even when the regulation was still in the deliberation process, we talked about it.
One of the regulations also says that people must register their vehicles to go to campaigns. This would only be relevant if there were vehicle convoys. How can you register your vehicle when you are not allowed to have a convoy? That's why such an irrelevant regulation needs to be eliminated.
Q: How could it be done if the written regulation is still there?
A: We are forced to see whether the regulations are applicable. It happens in other sectors as well, not only in the campaign regulations. Certain traffic regulations, for example, do not always fit in with all traffic flow. The officers in charge, therefore, should be flexible in applying it. (swa)