Making elections credible

While we have all gloated about how the 1999 general election was the most democratic Indonesia has held in more than four decades, few people have really asked the question whether it was credible. If we truly looked at the way the elections were organized, we'd find that it was hardly credible at all.

It was certainly much better and more democratic in relation to the previous six elections held during the Soeharto regime. And since the results were quite satisfactory to most, including those who have been most vocal in calling for democratic reforms, few people have questioned or scrutinized the way it was held.

There were so many problems with the organization of the 1999 elections that should have raised serious questions about the credibility of the results, and therefore of the government which was formed out of this process. Yet, the nation decided to turn a blind eye to the many organizational shortcomings as well as the thousands of violations committed during the elections.

The General Election Commission (KPU), for example, noted that it had received no less than 2,400 complaints about violations of the electoral laws. Only a handful of these have been dealt with in the courts of law, even then not, very satisfactorily. The majority of the 48 political parties contesting the 1999 elections have not even submitted their campaign funds for independent auditing as required by the law.

And then there was the farce within the KPU itself. Made up of representatives of the 48 political parties contesting the polls plus five representatives of the government, the KPU members have abused the trust and authority given to them to organize the elections. About a third of the Rp 1.3 trillion rupiah allocated to the KPU to organize the polls has apparently not been accounted for to this day.

So the next time we gloat about how democratic the 1999 election was compared to the six previous, it should come with the qualification that it was hardly credible. While there is no possibility of going back and undoing the election results, recognition of this fact should compel us to prevent a repetition of the same mistakes and to prepare for a more credible elections in 2004.

For this to happen, we have to begin with the KPU itself, as the institution most responsible for organizing the elections.

We seem to have made the right start. In May 2001, then President Abdurrahman Wahid installed the new commission whose 11 members went through a rigorous screening process at the House of Representatives. Most, if not all, of the 11 members have the right credentials: Respected and independent-minded scholars with no known ties to political parties. Some even have proven track records in campaigning for a more democratic Indonesia.

Having the right people serving at the electoral commission alone, however, is not enough. We need to ensure that the KPU is not only independent, but that it is also empowered to do the right things that will make the 2004 elections credible. In short, we need an independent, professional and empowered KPU.

Sadly, the bills on political parties and on general elections, now being deliberated by the House of Representatives, fall short of giving the KPU the authority it needs. It is even sadder to note that the role of KPU has not attracted as much attention as other issues in the two bills, such as the right to vote for military members and the stringent requirements for political parties to contest the elections. Yet, how we organize elections, and thus what role we assign to KPU, will determine whether this exercise in democracy in 2004 is credible or not.

Under the two bills, most of the power and authority in organizing the elections still rest with the government -- in this case, the Ministry of Home Affairs -- instead of the commission. This should hardly come as a surprise because the two bills were hastily drawn up by the Ministry of Home Affairs with little consultation from outside, including the KPU. Like all bureaucrats around the world, officials of the Ministry obviously were more concerned about retaining control as much as possible. If the bills were approved as they stand at the moment, the KPU will probably still be independent, but it will have very little authority.

For those who are concerned about making the 2004 elections credible, or at the very least more credible than in 1999, the task at hand is clear: Ensure that the electoral laws in 2004 give both the independence and the authority that KPU deserves. In this era of reform, getting the right results (meaning electing a pro-reform government) in the 2004 elections is certainly important, but how we achieve that goal is even more important.