Election '97: Lessons for the victor

Election '97: Lessons for the victor

By Irman G. Lanti

JAKARTA (JP): The last general election this century has come
to an end. And Golkar, as in the previous five elections held in
the New Order era, emerged the winner.

Procuring more than 74 percent of the votes, Golkar was
unrivaled by PPP, who obtained less than 25 percent of the votes
(albeit a dramatic increase from the 1992 election), and PDI, who
was crushed in this election. Beyond the percentage of votes and
number of seats in the House of Representatives won by the three
contenders, the 1997 election has yielded several lessons for the
groups as well as for the government.

Unlike previous elections, tension was high before and during
the campaign, as well as after the voting period. The election
process in Indonesia has always been less than peaceful. One
example is Lapangan Banteng in 1982, in which a clash between
supporters of one group and security forces resulted in the loss
of life.

But the level of tension during the 1997 campaign was
unprecedented. Prior to the campaign, a riot broke out in
Pekalongan. In this traditional PPP area, the people reacted
against what was considered an early start to campaigning by
Golkar in the area.

During the campaign there were a number of riots throughout
the country. In Jakarta, it was considered hazardous to travel in
the city during campaigning. A riot in Banjarmasin claimed the
lives of more than 100 people and resulted in the destruction of
public facilities, amounting to billions of rupiah damage. Even
after the seemingly peaceful election day, a riot broke out in
Sampang Madura due to dissatisfaction with the voting process.
Election-related riots also occurred in Serang.

The PPP and PDI parties have expressed their disappointment
toward the alleged rigging of the election process. PPP has
threatened not to sign the report of election results in a number
of areas. PDI has hinted that it would nullify the election
results altogether by not fulfilling the small number of seats it
has acquired.

All of these problems are lessons for Golkar, which has run
the government throughout the New Order administration. It seems
that Golkar has gained an easy victory. But in reality, the
victory is a result of the unprecedented level of social costs
that the government has to pay. While Golkar has set the record
percentage for all New Order elections, the price incurred is
also the highest. If Golkar wishes to maintain its enormous
popularity in the future, there are a number of caveats it must
observe.

The social cost of winning the election is increasing. The
national educational development has resulted in better
analytical skills and capabilities of Indonesians. The society is
becoming more critical toward deception and more resistant of
coercion. Ways and means that have proven successful in the past
may prove dangerous in the future. Riots surrounding the 1997
election were due to dissatisfaction with the alleged unfair
behavior of the dominant party and the government concerning the
whole election process.

Secondly, dissatisfaction will increase if Golkar, as the
dominant group, fails to fulfill its campaign promise to
eradicate corruption and collusion, to alleviate poverty, and to
reduce socioeconomic gaps. Golkar will become less popular if the
problems in the political-economic system of Indonesia persist.

Thirdly, Golkar's close association with the government has
created problems as well as advantages. The advantages are
clearly manifested in large votes for Golkar. The problems range
from allegations of vote-rigging by local government officials in
favor of Golkar and numerous attacks on government officials due
to this allegation. Another problem is the PPP's and PDI's
refusal to sign election results. If these problems remain
unaddressed larger skirmishes can be expected in the future.

Fourthly, interference in the affairs of political parties has
proven counterproductive. The meager vote acquired by PDI
resulted in a record low number of seats won by a party in the
parliament throughout the New Order. This may create a procedural
-- if not a legal -- problem in the parliament. PDI might not be
able to fulfill all parliamentary functions, which comprise
eleven commissions, one inter-parliamentary body, and one
chairperson of the House. The legislature may face a crisis if
the present rule, which requires the consensus of all
parliamentary factions to make certain decisions, is maintained
because PDI is not represented.

International pressure has put Indonesia on the defensive,
especially regarding the recent election. The international
community regards the election in Indonesia as a mere
justification that the present regime be considered democratic.
The ousting of Megawati attracted the attention of several
international groups, who said the election did not represent a
real democratic process. Reports of manipulations and unfair
treatment further justified this opinion. Tougher international
pressure on Indonesia is expected if the problems surrounding the
election continue to be neglected by the government, the most
powerful political force in Indonesia.

The writer is a political analyst residing in Jakarta.