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).