Local elections: An opportunity for graft

Local elections: An opportunity for graft

Adnan Topan Husodo, Jakarta

Various studies on election-related graft practices show that
in general there are four kinds of irregularities practiced by
election candidates and political parties. As these four kinds of
graft are found before and during election time, it is very
likely that they will also be found during the direct election of
the heads of local government.

Election-related graft is often referred to as money politics.
Money politics has a broader meaning because it can be practiced
on occasions other than elections. In legal terminology, money
politics is referred to as bribery, which is considered a
criminal act.

The first kind of graft is better known as seat buying, an act
in which the candidates wishing to serve as members of the House
of Representatives or regional legislative councils use money and
connections to gain a seat.

These practices will find fertile ground if political parties
are allowed to determine who will be the candidates for public
office, leaving, therefore, no room for independent candidates to
take part. These practices will be rife especially if the
mechanism for the general elections inside a political party, for
example a party convention, does not give an opportunity to the
public (the constituents) to be involved in the decision-making
process.

The second kind of election graft is known as influence
buying, where a candidate or party "buys" certain community
figures such as religious leaders, traditional elders and other
informal leaders to influence the voters in determining their
political preferences. In a situation in which the general
elections are conducted directly, as will be the case in the
forthcoming election of heads of municipalities, regencies and
provinces, influence buying will be more effective than vote
buying.

There are at least two reasons for this.

First, in a direct election, there will not be a single method
that can be used to ascertain the loyalty of a voter to the party
that pays him or her. Second, culturally, there is a deep bond
between the community and local figures.

The third form is called electoral administrative corruption,
where a candidate or a political party tries to influence the
election process and result by bribing election organizers. It
starts from the level of villages, districts, regencies and so
forth. Election supervisors are asked to multiplying the number
of voters, including fake ballot papers or manipulating vote
counting.

The fourth practice is vote buying and this is the most
familiar of all graft practices in connection with general
elections. This is done by candidates or a political party to
influence voters by giving them money or assistance.

The legislative and presidential elections last year show that
there was a lot of vote buying, starting from the distribution of
door prizes, gasoline coupons for the masses taking part in
elections campaigns, or cash.

Perhaps, in the scope of corruption in general elections, the
parties must be watched over because they are likely to be
involved in irregularities when their candidates are incumbent
politicians or currently serving as public officials.

Incumbent regional leaders will enjoy the benefit of being
able not only to gain access to local financial sources or the
regional budget but also to use their authority to allocate a
budget to ensure that they will win the election.

The sudden introduction of populist programs in villages, such
as road making, the establishment of places for religious
services, the free distribution of basic necessities or the free
distribution of seedlings to farmers just before a gubernatorial
election should raise suspicion. Public funds may have been spent
on efforts to make sure that a certain candidate will win the
election.

In addition, incumbent politicians also enjoy ample
opportunities and authority to influence the independence of the
committee organizing the election.

Although in practice, the local government elections are
organized by a Regional General Elections Commission (KPUD), the
KPUD is not accountable to the General Elections Commission
(KPU), which oversees a KPUD. Instead the KPUD is accountable to
the regional legislative assembly, a fact that allows pressure,
intimidation, manipulation and no guarantee of independence on
the part of the election organizers.

It must be borne in mind that the four kinds of election-
related corruption as explained above involve spending.
Meanwhile, there are corruption practices involving income,
usually in the form of capital intervention by certain interest
groups. These groups will fund certain political activities,
candidates or political parties in an election to ensure their
candidates or parties' victory.

This capital intervention will be considered bribery only if
it is conducted illegally and the funds come from an illegal
source, violating, therefore, the prevailing laws.

Indeed, Government Regulation No. 6/2005 on the election,
legalization of the appointment and dismissal of regional heads
and deputy regional heads, particularly Articles 65 to 69,
regulates campaign funds for candidates. This regulation
stipulates a limit on donations, the sources of campaign funds
permitted, the obligation to account for how campaign funds are
spent and a restriction on receiving campaign funds from certain
sources.

However, election graft, viewed in terms of the spending and
income, may still take place. This is especially so because the
findings of alleged crimes in general elections, particularly
those related to corruption, have never been thoroughly
investigated by law enforcers.

The writer is member of working board of Indonesian Corruption
Watch (ICW).