International monitoring of general elections improves

International monitoring of general elections improves

By Mulyana W. Kusumah

JAKARTA (JP): International monitoring of general elections, to ensure free and fair polling, has improved dramatically in recent years; the result of many countries' desire to facilitate global democracy.

Similar moves have also taken place at a regional level as shown by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Organization of American States. The Organization of African Unity also pays great attention to elections.

According to experienced international monitors, a free and fair general election needs: an atmosphere that respects human rights and that outlaws intimidation; the realization of the right to participate in government; the acknowledgement of non- discriminatory principles; freedom of opinion and expression; freedom of association, peaceful assembly and movement.

Moreover, a general election is not only a technical process but also part of a political process requiring public trust that must be built through an effective and impartial election apparatus, the involvement of contestants in each basic element of the election process, the safety and security of all participants and voters and the implementation of the principles of transparency in all the electoral stages.

From the above ideas, an international trend that emerges in the context of general elections is the widespread acceptance of the contribution of non-partisan domestic election monitors, as exist in South Africa, Mexico, Macedonia, Ukraine, Nepal, and ASEAN countries like Thailand and the Philippines.

According to William A. Callahan, who in 1996 conducted a study in Thailand, the establishment of a private institute to monitor general elections is not a new idea, because there has been a long tradition of such activity in Bangkok. Most general elections since 1957 have been monitored by a community supervisory group. In 1957, 1968 and 1975, these supervisory groups were organized by students, and in 1986 a Voluntary General Opinion Group was formed to monitor the general election (established by retired Gen. Saiyud Kerdphol).

The election monitoring institute in Thailand, Poll Watch, which has become part of the community's perception on the general procedure of elections, has the following characteristics: first, autonomy from the government and all political agencies; second, a clearly defined duty and responsibility to avoid conflict with other agencies and, third, financial support from the government and state enterprises.

Thailand's Poll Watch, says Callahan, is a group with special characteristics; it is supported by the government through a prime ministerial decree. Its objective is to promote the people's participation in general elections and to make the general election balanced and just.

In the Philippines, not long after the murder of opposition leader Benigno Aquino in 1983, the National Citizens Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL) was set up. It assumed a different political position from other opponents who recommended a boycott and saw elections as legitimizing the illegitimate. In 1984, on the Philippines' political scene, there were three alternatives: going to the right and supporting Marcos; the middle, in support of NAMFREL, and left, to boycott the general election by declaring it a myth with the aim of defending a dictatorship.

Amidst virulent criticism, members of NAMFREL, who had been accused of garnering support for the general election for the sake of legitimizing the authoritarian Marcos regime, went on to recommend participation; reform of political legislation and the organization of an integral election monitoring program with a non-partisan orientation.

By 1984, NAMFREL had succeeded in recruiting 150,000 volunteers, and in the 1986 presidential election observers recorded more than 500,000 active volunteers from various community layers and organizations or NGOs which actively supported the NAMFREL programs, and through their Operation Quick Count this election monitoring institute managed to achieve its target and to consolidate its credibility.

Slightly different from Poll Watch, NAMFREL was not only active in its relations with general election procedures, but also "provided the environment so that good prospective representatives of the people could realize the opportunity of holding office", and its attention was directed toward fraud on the day of voting and afterwards.

Similar activities took place in other countries in the 1980s and early 1990s, such as Panama, Chili and Bulgaria.

Developments in these countries seem to have influenced the emergence of the same ideas in Indonesia these past few months, and incited a variety of responses from officials, political figures and academicians.

Another factor which influenced domestic proponents of independent election monitoring was the country's increasing internal political dynamics, such as the emergence of elements in the political process which reflected the existence of demands from Indonesia's modern civilian community for an increase in the quality of political participation.

The idea of developing independent election monitoring outside official institutions in the context of optimizing the capacity of the political system, has clearly a strong foundation, both linked to the objectives of raising the nation's political power and in the context of realizing the people's sovereignty through general elections.

Advocates of such a body should not, therefore, be hampered by individuals or organizations from attempting to realize their ambition. For without independent monitors how can we call our elections free and fair?

The writer is a lecturer at the School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Indonesia and is executive director of the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute Foundation.