Learning from the poll results

By J. Soedjati Djiwandono

JAKARTA (JP): Barely 48 hours after election day on May 29, Golkar had received more than 74 percent, PPP almost 24 percent, and PDI just slightly above 3 percent of the votes cast.

So far there has been no report on the exact voter turnout, nor the number of invalid votes. The usual high turnout may have less to do with the degree of political consciousness than with the general pliability of Indonesians, many of whom regard their right to vote as an obligation as a "good citizen".

Yet it seems unlikely that the final count is going to change the ratio in any significant way. Thus, the present tentative result may be regarded as representing a fairly accurate picture of the present position of each of the three parties.

Although Golkar has won more votes than its original target of a little over 70 percent, there is nothing spectacular about its victory. It is to be expected. Any group with the resources at Golkar's disposal could have done equally well: most favorable treatment by the government; seemingly almost unlimited funds; the backing of the entire bureaucracy, civilian as well as military, from top to bottom; laws and regulations in its favor; earlier campaigns, particularly the so-called "meetings with cadres" across the nation; the government it supports supposed to be beyond criticism; and monopoly over access to the computer database recording the election results.

Yet, under the circumstances, PPP has done well. During the campaign it showed more guts in asserting itself on important and often controversial issues. But for the moment, it remains anybody's guess as to where the additional votes for the party have come from. It remains unclear whether its apparent pre- election "alliance" with Megawati supporters had anything to do with it, and how the three groups shared the votes of first-time voters, and how many of them cast their votes. The prospect of it becoming a major party with a chance of winning a single majority in the future may depend primarily on its capability of changing its image and identity from a sectarian to a truly non-sectarian and nation-oriented party.

The most significant and most educational aspect of the election was the PDI phenomenon. That PDI reached its lowest ebb, not only compared with the other two contenders, but primarily with its own past records, should be no surprise to anyone, and no tears shed. This may have been the aim of the government's intervention in the party's leadership crisis, to ensure a "round" consensus, not an "oval" consensus in the (re)election of the President, by unseating Megawati, the most likely obstacle.

PDI's miserable showing may represent the voters' disgust with its sell out to the government and their protest of the latter's blatant intervention. It is, in this way, a moral verdict rather than a purely political choice.

It is a reason for optimism, that however pliant and politically naive many Indonesians may seem, they have learned the right lesson. One would hope this is true, particularly with the young generation. The future of this nation is in their hands, and the much needed political reform, not just any change, will be their challenge. It will be their game.

Indeed, there is yet a lot to learn. But surely, time is on their side unlike the older generation who only talk about change, without a clear idea of what kind of change, in what direction, and how to accomplish it.

The writer is a member of the board of directors at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta.