Election monitoring has become a commodity

By Edith Hartanto

JAKARTA (JP): Mulyana Wira Kusumah used to be one of the New Order government's "enemies" for his critical stand on the regime's policies. But now, he is entrusted by the government to help prepare the upcoming elections.

Mulyana, a criminologist and a father of five, is currently a deputy chairman of the official election watchdog, Panwaslakpus, and formerly a member of the now defunct Team of Eleven, a group of 11 independent figures assigned to select political parties eligible to compete in the June 7 polls.

In addition, he is also the sole "navigator" of the Independent Election Monitoring Committee (KIPP), the first independent poll watchdog in the country.

Mulyana talked to The Jakarta Post recently about poll monitoring activities to ensure a fair and free election.

Q: What is your biggest concern for the upcoming elections?

A: I see the efforts of the pro-status quo groups to remain in power. I cannot point fingers at any group, but it's real. The widespread unrest, the presence of unknown provocateurs; all these things hamper the ongoing election process.

An election is a political transformation, and every change resulting from it matters to the status quo groups. KIPP has predicted that elections are very unlikely to take place in 10 percent of the country's 327 regencies due to their vulnerability to unrest. I think it is very unlikely that polls will be held in areas such as Aceh, Maluku, West Kalimantan and Irian Jaya.

Riots that have rocked various parts of the country have caused damage to infrastructure, and based on our observations, any disturbance in one place tends to spill over into other areas. Other observers have also raised similar concerns.

Therefore, I believe a delayed poll in unrest-ridden regencies would be preferable if technical problems remain unsettled. And Law No. 3/1999 on the general election allows it. It says polls may be delayed for a maximum of 30 days from the scheduled balloting date.

Q: What, do you think, need to be watched out for during the poll process?

A: Of course, first of all, we must carefully monitor the work of the General Elections Commission (KPU), including (committees) in provincial and district levels.

The decision-making process is very hard to run smoothly in these institutions because it involves all the 48 parties and government representatives. Imagine, in KPU, for instance, there are 53 people (48 party representatives plus five government representatives) with 53 different ideas and interests. It is very hard to synchronize their thoughts and interests to work as a team.

But if they put in enough energy and spirit and take the responsibility for a fair, free and democratic poll, I believe they will be able to run the elections well.

Two of the most crucial poll processes to be monitored are voter registration and vote counting. Of course we also have to watch the campaign period.

And remember that the general election law also allows a second vote in areas where vote-rigging or other violations are present.

Another thing to be carefully observed is nomination of legislators. Now there is no special screening on each legislative candidate. Then the questions are: Are the nominees really qualified to represent the people? How do we know that a party is not lying about its candidates? We should understand that the candidates are drawn up by parties board leaders. So, people have to be more critical of their parties' candidates as the next legislature will determine the fate of this nation.

Q: Can you elaborate more about poll-rigging practices based on KIPP's past experiences?

A: In the 1997 election, we monitored only 47 cities in 14 provinces and we faced serious political and financial obstacles. We eventually managed to report our findings from only 25 cities. There were days when we were watched by military intelligence officers and had our meetings dispersed. Once my house in Condet, East Jakarta, was also surrounded by intelligence officers.

It is amazing how things have become so free now.

From past experience, we have noticed basically two kinds of poll rigging, that is, casting votes more than once and systematic fraud. In the past, people could vote twice or more at different places as there were no effective mechanisms to control it. Now we use indelible ink for making marks on voters' hands to avoid this practice, but we have to be sure that the ink cannot be easily washed off.

The systematic fraud carried on by the bureaucracy ranged from a neat network engineered by government officials from all administrative levels right down to raw tricks. For instance, there was a special instruction from high-ranking officials to all their subordinates to help Golkar win elections at all costs.

Of course, the officials who received the order would act, come hell or high water. Also, in the past, the vote counting could be done in subdistrict or district offices, rather than in polling booths. And this, of course, benefited Golkar.

I think in the next poll such fraud will be reduced. But we must not lower our guards as bureaucrats in the lower levels still have great power to mobilize people such as in the villages or remote areas.

The past practice of throwing ballot boxes into the sea is unlikely to reoccur. But who knows? If such actions occur in the next poll, the party officials involved may be lynched by mobs because the people have the political courage now.

Another loophole is the ballot data transmission. In the current system, there will be a certification system for ballot results. But the senders or receivers of ballot results may manipulate the data as it will be sent by fax or other telecommunications devices, such as two-way radios or cellular phones. Of course, the dangers of making mistakes, such as giving incorrect data, are high here.

Q: Do you think poll monitoring activities have become a big business here?

A: I think... yes. With the current phenomenon of so many non- governmental organizations (NGOs) suddenly emerging and striving to get grants for the election process, poll monitoring activities have become a kind of commodity.

The question is: Will all of those NGOs conduct serious monitoring activities? Or, are they just in it for the money? If we decide to be involved in this task, we have to be committed to it.

KIPP, for instance, has always been independent. KIPP branches are non-partisan. For example, in Madura, KIPP has branches in four regencies and the supporters are Muslim clerics. KIPP in Jakarta does not give a dime for the branches' establishment. That is why we can control our members.

Currently, KIPP has about 60,000 volunteers and hopes this figure to reach 130,000 to oversee 128 regencies, and we have been monitoring since the early stages of the election process. We observed, among other things, delays caused by spats between the KPU and parties contesting the polls.

And one thing is certain, we will be objective. We're not trying to look for mistakes, and if the next poll is fair, we will declare it so.

Q: How about violence before, during and after the campaign?

A: The only way to curb bloodshed is for political parties to make a joint code of conduct not only on the elite level but most importantly at the grassroots level.

The code of conduct, for instance, could rule that no party can make speeches highlighting racial, religious or ethnic conflicts which could trigger aggressiveness and violence.

And I am afraid that violence will also be triggered by parties who are not ready to lose. In this sense, I think people have to be aware that Golkar is still likely to win, at least 40 to 30 percent of the votes outside Java. I don't think there will be a sharp decrease in Golkar's vote results.

If Golkar wins this election by a free, fair and honest competition, we have to accept this. Why not? We have to accept the fact that such things are the political reality in Indonesia.