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)