Election and democracy

You have recently published some interesting letters on the subject of the election.

James Richards, in his letter of May 1, highlights the different campaigning styles of the British and Indonesian electoral systems and says that they show that democracy is understood differently in different countries.

I do not think this is entirely accurate, since the different campaigning styles are more due to social differences than to concepts of democracy. The Indonesian style of flag waving and rowdiness would be considered by British people to be more appropriate for soccer matches than for political meetings. In the 1992 British electoral campaign, for example, the Labor Party, confident of victory, held a triumphant, banner-waving rally in the city of Sheffield. The vulgarity of this event was later thought to have contributed to their subsequent slide to defeat. Conversely, British-style door-to-door campaigning would be ineffective in Indonesia. Most Indonesians receiving a visit from such an important person as a parliamentary candidate would be so concerned with rules of hospitality and etiquette that meaningful political argument would be impossible.

By contrasting the British and Indonesian elections, we should pay more attention to other differences, such as those in the formation of political parties, the selection of candidates and the relationship between the elected representatives and the government. But even these differences do not mean that democracy is understood differently in Britain and Indonesia. Most British people believe that their national ideology is democracy. Most Indonesian people believe that their national political ideology is Pancasila.

Helmut Krahmer, in his May 5 letter, deals with the issue of not voting and concludes that it is counterproductive. I think this point needs to be considered more fully. After all, an individual voter is only one among millions and he may reason that his one vote has no effect on the overall outcome no matter who he votes for.

Let us consider a participant in an election who is considering abstaining. His motivation to express an opinion will push him to "vote white", since he believes that none of the eligible parties are worthy of his support. His motivation to show solidarity will draw him towards supporters of abstention, since he has no desire to align himself with supporters of parties in which he has no faith. His motivation to contribute positively to the election will pull him in different directions, depending on how he perceives the value of the election for the nation.

In Britain, the function of the election is to bring to power a government that best represents the wishes of the people. In this case, a good citizen will abstain rather than vote for a party he does not support. If people vote for parties they do not like, politicians will believe that they have public support for policies which may in be unpopular, whereas a large-scale abstention tells the parties that they need to reform in order to better meet people's wishes.

In Indonesia, the function of the election is to help the government rule in the best interests of the people, and this requires harmony and consensus. In this case, a good citizen may vote for a party he does not support rather than abstain. If people abstain, dissenting elements in society will believe that they have support for activities which jeopardize stability and security, whereas support for official political parties enables the government to get on with their job of upholding Pancasila among Indonesians and increasing their wealth.

JOHN HARGREAVES

Jakarta