Honest and fair election in 1997?

Honest and fair election in 1997?

By Susilo Utomo

JAKARTA (JP): Two issues confronting the coming elections in 1997 loom clear and sharp on the political horizon of Indonesia.

One concerns principles of honesty and fairness which actually are part of the foundation of the election. This issue plays an important role in the political agenda of United Development Party (PPP) in a bid to bring about an environment conducive for a truly democratic election.

The experiences of five past elections have shown that principles implemented in the campaigns were in no way guarantees for a smooth process for the involved parties and voters.

The second issue, an interesting one if proven true, could herald the arrival of a new culture in national politics, which, heretofore had been little more than choosing the proverbial cat in the bag.

The interesting question posed by these issues is, will they bring about change, or, at least, breath fresh air into the coming 1997 election? The issues have gained enormous attention from two sociopolitical forces, the PPP and Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) parties.

The leading political group, Golkar, however, is keeping a status quo line, maintaining that matters concerning honesty and fairness have already been incorporated in its former principles. The party, therefore, does not deem change necessary, nor is it of the opinion that the present general election law should be further modified. Yogie SM, minister of home affairs, went even so far as to allege that the question of honesty and fairness in the coming election, raised by the PPP party, is just an effort to corner the government and to attract sympathy from voters.

At the same time the issue of a presidential nominee has been shrugged off by the administration as being too early and ill proportioned a subject for debate. Golkar reasons that the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) alone is authorized to elect a presidential nominee, a procedure that does not require the medium of an election in the annals of history.

Admittedly, it appears that the above issues could have been raised on purpose by both PPP and PDI parties on grounds of political reasons and in effort to raise their influence on the political scene.

There are four points of argument regarding this, covering:

First: neutrality and objectivity of the national election committee; second: the paradox of democracy; third: the average man on the street, and fourth: elections are held too sacred.

Let us take a look at the first point; neutrality and objectivity of the election committee.

PPP is endeavoring with all its might to make the "honest and fair" principle work by changing or revitalizing the general election law in future.

The party reasons that these two virtues alone could maintain a balanced neutrality and objectivity in the Election Committee while the application of those principles in former elections was aimed at voters alone. Looking at the issue from this aspect, the party concludes that the "free and secret" principle of past elections did not necessarily cover the honest and fair principle as well.

So far, the holding of general elections has been the task and the responsibility of the President as carrier of the MPR's mandate. Under this mandate the President is authorized to form an Indonesian Election Committee (PPI) and Regional Election Committees.

The composition of the Election Committee has been the reason why the position of the political parties in general elections has been that of "straight players" confronting players who at the same time act as referee and organizers of this "feast of democracy".

Considering these facts, PPP's stance of upholding the honest and fair principle is a double-edged sword. Its main aim is to express concern for the Committee's honesty. Its second aim is to ensure participation of all the contesting parties in the Election Committee.

The second concerns the paradox of democracy.

A number of prerequisites are necessary to ensure the true democratic nature of general elections, to name: fair competition, freedom of the press and equal opportunities for all participants.

Given these prerequisites, elections conducted in Indonesia are still a far cry from being democratic, particularly for the political parties.

Campaign restrictions such as on criticizing the government and criticizing development policies have so far rendered the political parties weak and powerless. They are neither opposition nor government parties.

Political parties are given only four weeks to campaign for votes. The time span is clearly too small to reach the hearts of voters.

Golkar on the other hand has apparently been given far more leeway, with Safari Ramadhan tours, gatherings with cadres and collective Friday praying assemblies being staged even before commencement of the official campaign time, not to mention the actual time of campaigning and the week of silence before election day. PPP has taken advantage of this situation by raising the honest and fair issue, which could notch them a credit point. Even if it is a foregone conclusion that the party will never come out a winner, the move might at least transform PPP's image into that of a justice avenging angel. Golkar, on the other hand, has found itself in a most precarious place, not unlike the position of a sitting duck.

Point of debate number three: The average man in the street.

Virtues like honesty and fairness are issues which appeal to ordinary citizens who form the majority of the Indonesian population.

The emphasis on economic development over the decades has led to the tendency to measure humane qualities in material and numerical terms. There is the trend to evaluate situations in numbers, or prices. This materialized, for instance, in the form of land appropriation.

Injustice, corruption and abuse of power are still rife. Thus it might be said that the issues of honesty and fairness are subjects representing the living concerns of the Indonesian people, with the most destitute among them making up the front ranks.

Point of debate number four: Elections are put on too sacred a level.

During the past five election campaigns, issues aired by the three contesting parties were almost identical. They were abstract and were lacking in concern for existing political realities. Observations of past elections laid bare such favorite subjects as support for the New Order, support for the Armed Forces, implementation of Pancasila and the Indonesian Constitution of 1945. The alleged nomination of Megawati was, therefore, regarded as violating conventions.

Elections are indeed a means to elect representatives of the people at a national level as well as in the regions. However it should be remembered that it is the MPR which is authorized to elect a president and vice president. The MPR consists of elected representatives of the people (members of the House of Representatives) and representatives of the regions as well as representatives of the Armed Forces. With the general elections electing only the members of the House, members of contestant parties should be entitled to voice their choice of a future president and a future vice president after their election to the legislature.

The nomination of candidates for the presidency and vice presidency deserve to be supported as much as the unanimous voting system which the government has constantly favored over past decades.

Today, the issues of honesty and fairness and that of a presidential nominee are hot subjects in the Indonesian political arena. Whether they can actually be realized is a question to which only history holds the answer. What is obvious is that those issues at present place Golkar and the government on the one side and the political parties PPP and PDI in diametrically opposed positions.