Elections really are the cheapest alternative

Elections really are the cheapest alternative

Kevin Evans,

Elections really are the cheapest alternative

At a recent Idul Fitri gathering a friend declared that
"elections are really expensive. Is it worth it?"

I suddenly recalled the days before we could use elections
to change a government. In 1998 the President of the day was
dutifully re-elected by every single participating member of
the National Assembly (MPR). No questions, no dissent, not
even an expressions of concern.

The uncompetitive and tediously stage crafted elections from
1971 to 1997 produced a political leadership that could
quarantine itself from the real world in which the rest of
Indonesia lived. Outside this quarantine zone inflation was
shooting towards 100%, the economy was collapsing 15%,
unemployment and poverty were skyrocketing as factory, shop and
other business' collapsed under 50% interest rates and no demand.
Shops were running short of supplies as hoarding took place (even
before the looting).

The problem was that to change leaders, people had to shake
the country to its foundations, destroy the economy and threaten
the social and political fabric of the nation. Even in crude
money terms, the cost of the competitive 1999 elections was
actually less than the loss in value of just one mid-sized
company on the Jakarta stockmarket.

What an absurdly extravagant, expensive and painful way to
change a government! The costs of changing the government back
in the mid-1960s was arguably even more expensive, certainly in
terms of the loss of life.

Frankly an election that used gold plated ballot papers would
still be far cheaper than the costs of having to destroy the
economy and leave untold numbers of citizens dead and traumatised
if all that was desired was to change the government

As a result I think it fair to say that competitive, (free and
fair), elections is a far cheaper way to say to a leader or other
politicians "it's time to enjoy your retirement" than to resort
to other options this country has been forced to use far too
frequently throughout history.

One question often asked cynically, particularly from the
urban intellectuals, is "will these elections produce change?"
Setting aside the issue of instant gratification, that is take
elections mix in free press, then presto instant just and
prosperous democracy, this question can only be answered by
considering a few other questions.

The most basic question to be considered is whether 140
million voters want change or not? For example will the voters
be happy to take their Rp 50,000 (or whatever the going rate next
year will be) before polls open and vote for the party that
provided such "generosity"? How many voters recognise that
elections are not festivals of democracy and that the impact of
who they vote for can have a 5 year impact on their lives?
Additionally will people who have been thrown out of their make
shift houses as part of the Governor's cleansing of Jakarta vote
for the parties that re-elected this Governor? Will the coffee
shop radicals who enjoy deriding the existing and potential
leaders and political parties offer themselves for public office?

Unfortunately democracy is not such an easy option. It is
also not the "soft option" that the militarist mind-set would
have you believe. Democracy is the hard option for citizens
because it makes you responsible. It is not only leaders who are
responsible and accountable. As a voter you are responsible
directly for who is or is not elected. It is simply not good
enough to prattle on about "primordialism", poverty or low levels
of education etc in order to evade responsibility and justify
results.

One way to evade from responsibility is to boycott the vote.
The Golput (vote boycott) phenomena made great sense in an era
when politics was restricted and government controlled. Indeed
it was a powerful form of subversion. However in this era it is
merely self-defeating. Yes voters have the right not to vote.
But the catch is you can't actually opt out. This is because not
voting is also a vote. In not voting, your "vote" will actually
strengthen the party or candidate you most dislike.

It is very simple. There are two candidates. You don't like
either. Of course there is one you dislike slightly more than the
other. By not voting you actually provide support to the other,
as you would have voted for the first one had you voted.

Just ask the French Socialists. In the last elections they
decided to stay at home for the first round of the Presidential
Election. The candidate to benefit from this was the extreme
right winger, who came in second and was able to participate in
the final round. The ultimate beneficiary was the moderate right
winger as the Socialists were forced to vote for him to stop the
extreme right winger from being elected.

The bottom line of democracy is that you can't escape
responsibility, unless of course you escape democracy. Oh yes
the good ol' days, when the Great Leader made all the decisions
and we simply kept our mouth's shut. The good ol' days of
predictable tranquility when a thick blanket of political
censorship covered the ocean of Indonesia -- blissful and noble
ignorance. The good ol' days when we knew the system was corrupt
and that the official government structures bore scant
resemblance to the real structures of power. In seeking refuge
in nostalgia do recall that it took at least 10 years to
establish the good ol' days system and even then it was only 2
oil booms that lubricated the way for the system to survive as
long as it did.

In this regard the emergence of Indonesia's own version of
SARS (Sindrom Aku Rindu Soeharto -- the I Miss Soeharto Syndrome)
is a call to go Back to the Future. Sadly this is only possible
in movies. Even were the great Soeharto back as President would
the New Order be back overseeing 7% growth a year, investment
flooding in and freedom from freedom back in vogue? Of course
not. Immunity to SARS begins with accepting that the future of
the country is in your hands, not some messianic Great Leader.

The answer to the question of whether the elections will
produce change is "does the electorate want change?" If they
don't then the elections will not, and should not, produce
change. After all free and fair elections reflect the will of
the electorate. Alternatively if they do vote for change, then
yes the elections may well produce change.