Ensuring a free and fair election should begin right away
Ensuring a free and fair election should begin right away
The following is an interview with Andrew Ellis, a British
expert on electoral systems. Ellis has experience in designing
and implementing technical assistance programs for elections in
Cambodia, Palestine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Pakistan and Russia.
He came to Indonesia at the invitation of the National Democratic
Institute, an American NGO that assists with the development of
democratic processes worldwide.
Question: What are your initial comments about a country
which has just emerged from three decades of political repression
and is planning to hold an election soon?
Ellis: The first very important thing to say is that there is
no best prescriptive answer on how one builds a democracy or even
how one holds a successful transitional democratic election.
There are, however, some basic principles: the election should be
free, fair, transparent and secret.
What is important is that the participants in the election and
elements in society generally find the framework of the election,
the laws and regulations sufficiently acceptable. And if they do
that and if they are prepared to argue their case within an
agreed framework that is in line with international standards ...
Q: Which means...
E: First, by saying that the election should be free, I mean
there is freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of
expression and to put the message across, absence of intimidation
and threats and bribery and buying of influence and votes.
Second, that the election is fair in the sense that all votes
are of equal value, that all citizens have the opportunity to
form parties, to be part of the system, to be within the system,
to put their views across to the electorate.
Third, that the election should be secret in the sense that
everybody can vote and know that their vote is theirs and theirs
alone and nobody else will know who they voted for unless they
freely choose to say.
And fourth that the election is transparent which means that
all of those concern with the election can see that the decision-
making process and the administration are being conducted
properly and impartially.
People don't have to take it on trust; they can go and see
that things are being done properly and that when they have
complaints and grievances, arguments about the election process
are heard in public fairly and there is a clear appeals procedure
which enables just decisions and resolutions within a
predetermined time scale.
Q: Judging from past elections it seems that we have problems
with all these factors. What is to be done?
E: There are two aspects that are important. The first is that
the laws and regulations under which the election is conducted
and under which parties are registered and participate should
reflect the above principles.
And the legislation must make it clear that it reflects the
basic principles even when stated in considerable detail because
there is a lot of technical detail in the construction of an
election system and an election administration, although a lot of
it often looks either boring or difficult to understand. But a
lot of it is very important in ensuring that the election is a
democratic election.
For example it is important that the rules for converting the
number of the votes cast into the number of seats held in
legislature are crystal clear.
I'm not commenting here on the debate on the best electoral
system for Indonesia at all but what is important is whatever
system is chosen it must be absolutely clear that from the
beginning, in the laws and regulations, how the number of votes
cast for the parties or candidates is converted to identifying
who is going to sit as the member of the new DPR (House of
Representatives).
If you don't do that, if you are unclear, you run a risk as
recently happened in Cambodia where two sets of regulations --
either of which were perfectly acceptable systems if they had
been in place at different times -- produced different election
results from the same polling.
It was not surprising that the people who were disadvantaged
complained very strongly that something, that could have been
avoided, was wrong if it has been absolutely clear from the
beginning which set of rules was being followed.
There are a huge number of people involved in an election and
thus therefore a lot of training, a lot of publicity to make sure
that everybody does the job properly and within the rules. And
again, even with the best rules in the world, not everybody is
always going to get it exactly right and it's therefore helpful
what the rules say and everybody can see what the rules say and
what should be happening to avoid disputes at local level.
The second aspect is that however good the laws and
regulations are, a democratic election depends on the active
commitment of parties to uphold these laws. Democracy goes hand
in hand with the rule of law and the participants sticking to the
laws and is an integral part of the electoral process.
And there is a very important active role for parties in
ensuring that their members not only campaign for the aims and
objectives and programs of the party but are committed as party
agents to watching the way in which the election system is
working and being satisfied that things are being done correctly
and openly if party agents themselves are able to observe the
process throughout.
I don't mean by that just what happens on polling day but the
process of registering voters, judging the registration of
nominations with candidates, the campaign process itself, the
counting and the tabulation of votes of the declaration of final
results after the complaints or appeals have been held.
It is important that party members and party activists are
able to watch what is going on and look and listen and bring to
people's attention things that are not done right because finally
the guardian of the election will be the Indonesian people
themselves.
Q: Is political commitment to a democratic election be possible
with more than 100 new political parties?
E: This is a very common factor, that at the end of an
authoritarian era people come together. If one looks at the
period of the election in all of the eastern European countries
and in Russia after the fall of the communist authoritarian
regimes, in every case all sorts of people were getting together
and forming parties.
Because they wanted to be heard, what has happened in most
cases is that some parties have become well organized, put across
their message in a way that has struck a chord and have been
successful, survived and developed.
Other parties did not gather support and have fallen away.
Others joined with successful parties or decided that they could
operate more effectively as a pressure group or non-governmental
organization and of course one or two of them have given up
because nobody agrees with them.
A lot of political parties during a transition to democracy is
normal and natural and indeed it shows that there is a healthy
interest in involvement in society.
Now how that translates into an election process is an
important question because there are some practical issues here.
It is certainly quite common, although not universal, that
there are demands for a certain level of organization from
parties in order to allow them to stand in an election. This is
not at all unusual and it's also not unusual to demand that
parties have a certain level of support in order to gain
representation in the legislature. This is commonly in the 3
percent to 5 percent range although there is no one right answer
to this.
Several other issues are important, however. First is that
legitimate parties and legitimate voices that have a right to be
heard in this debate are able to put forward their position
during the election campaign.
Second is the process of clarification that parties are in
fact qualified to run and heed the rules. This must be
transparent so everybody can be confident that the parties who
are in are qualified and the parties who are refused permission
to run are rejected for good and genuine reasons.
So the transparency of that process is very important.
The next question is a practical one which is how does one
have a ballot paper with a large number of choices on it. The
form of the ballot paper of course depends on the type of
electoral system but there is certainly experience that voters
are able to distinguish between a fairly large number of choices
if the ballot paper is laid out clearly.
I remember in a transitional election in Palestine in the
constituency of Gaza there were 93 ballot candidates on the
ballot paper, the voters were to choose 12 of them and the ballot
was 90 centimeters long. There was very little evidence that
voters found this difficult or did not vote for the people they
wanted as a result of having to use that ballot paper.
It is obviously something that needs to be judged on each
individual case, but if the voters are committed to the electoral
process and if the rules are designed so as not to confuse
people then you do not have to worry about ballot papers until
they become really enormous.
Q: In terms of country size, Palestine is a small country
compared to Indonesia and given the past political repression and
the current wave of violence, do you think the pessimism aired by
some observers that the country is imploding under pressure is
justified?
E: I hope it is not justified and it is up to Indonesians to
ensure that it is not justified. It is the strength of commitment
for all those active in the process of a successful and
democratic transition that enable democratic institutions to be
built through what are always difficult and turbulent times.
Q: So, turbulent times is not so unusual in a transitional
period?
E: Absolutely not. Look at the Philippines and the turbulence
that came with the reestablishment of democratic institutions
after the Marcos years.
Q: They managed to get through it eventually?
E: The elections were not totally peaceful. There was violence,
turbulence, excitement. Debate took place, the election took
place, the votes were counted and winners were declared. The
winners were sworn into office and were able to form a government
that was accepted by all, or nearly all, of those involved as a
legitimate government arising from a legitimate process.
There has also to be an acceptance that the opposition has the
legitimacy to question and to hold the government to account in
the legislative body because one of the basic foundations of
democracy is not only legitimacy for government but legitimacy
for the opposition to fulfill its role of pressuring and holding
the government to account.
Democracy means that people who put forward their ideas
unsuccessfully in the election have the right if they so wish to
be heard again and to have another go next time.
Q: With Indonesia's particular political ingredients in mind how
are we to ensure that the upcoming election does not get out of
hand?
E: The most important thing is that the election and transition
will be brought about by Indonesians together and therefore there
is a need for dialog and understanding between all the forces
involved to ensure that the transition is sufficiently acceptable
to a sufficiently large number of people. The result will never
be perfect in every last detail.
Second, in putting together the rules regarding a free, fair,
secret and transparent ballot, it is worth having the
participants define the details now. Therefore, come election day
everything will be clear and both the parties and indeed society
in general will be very much strengthened by the involvement of
as many people as possible.
Q: Do you agree that being in a period of transition to democracy
people have to be mentally prepared that this election will not
be perfect?
E: Yes. This election will not be absolutely perfect. Indeed it
is probable that future elections will not be perfect either.
Elections in well-established democracies are not necessarily
perfect either.
There are plenty of examples of elections in countries that
claim to be democratic having elections for years where something
has gone wrong; where people's votes were not registered, where
ballot papers failed to arrive at the polling stations on time
etc.
Q: But perfection is not the basis for determining whether an
election is legitimate or not?
E: That's correct. An election is legitimate if it has been held
within the rules and if the participants accept the legitimacy in
that problems exist within the institutions, as long as no one
goes outside the political system.
Q: The question of legitimacy of an election aside, there is also
a question of legitimacy of the government which is holding the
election...
E: The election will be acceptable if all parties believe that
what is being done is in sufficiently good faith, an attempt to
follow the rules, to do things straight, and that the will of the
people has come out and been reflected in the election.
Q: You are emphasizing the importance of dialog. Some people have
suggested that the government should forge a reconciliation with
the opposition...
E: That is certainly one way of doing it, but again it is not for
outsiders to prescribe the form of any dialog or even how formal
that dialog is. That is something that needs to be worked out
between the parties and between the people of Indonesia.
What matters is that the election process and the result of
the process are sufficiently acceptable to a sufficient number of
people so they will follow it through and work in accordance with
the result and not take themselves outside it. To achieve this
must involve a process of dialog.
Q: Coming back to technical details which are boring yet very
important, how are we to make sure that they will be heeded by
electoral participants?
E: It's important that the participants in the dialog leading to
an election think about the issues that are involved and if they
have views on them should raise them as part of the dialog. For
example, I've talked of this in relation to the importance of
open and clear complaints in the field procedures within an
electoral system.
And clearly that is an issue on which there is considerable
work to be done to develop exactly how this will work. Those who
want to see a good democratic transition or election will say we
are looking for a good election need to think of how that process
of hearing complaints and grievances will work and to ensure that
something is written into the laws. However, it will not be
necessary in the first reference because not everybody will agree
on how the law will work in every last detail.
Nonetheless the system must be sufficiently acceptable to all
that they are prepared to work within it. It will be helpful if a
dialog can take place at that level because if that kind of
agreement is reached early on then you are much less likely that
to have problems later when somebody challenges or wishes to
challenge something which has happened or if there is an argument
about the legitimacy of the complaint process.
Q: Will staffing an election in a large country with thousands of
islands and a big population make a different?
E: There are some things in a country as huge and diverse as
Indonesia that will be very special. There are other things which
are actually are quite similar whether they happen in a very
small country or in a very large country,
The basic process of voting consists of a registered elector
going into a polling station to, taking a ballot paper in some
form, marking it in secret and pushing it in a ballot box and
that this small process is undertaken by perhaps 500 or a
thousand voters.
And that process is the same whether it is done in Palestine
with one million electors or in Indonesia with 130 million
electors. The difference in Indonesia is that there are many more
of the same thing happening at the same time and so the logistics
and organization are on a much bigger scale. However, the actual
process of voting is the same whether you are doing it in a tiny
country or whether you are doing it in a huge country.
And the principles of freedom, fairness, transparency and
secrecy of the ballot apply in any society big or small, even
though every society will develop different rules to turn those
principles into reality. (hbk)