Election monitoring has become a commodity

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.