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.