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.