Not voting a sign of disobedience?

Not voting a sign of disobedience?

By Makmur Keliat

SURABAYA (JP): In the context of a modern state, an election
serves to symbolize the presence of democracy. It is believed
that by holding an election through a multiparty system people
will come to know the will of the majority.

Since one of the basic tenets of democracy is that to govern
people have to gain people's support based on a mandate, an
election is a symbol of people's sovereignty. In practical terms,
therefore, an election can be considered as a verdict of the
people on a government's performance.

One can assume that the majority regards a government's
performance as poor if its party obtains a lower percentage of
votes cast compared to the previous election or if it is
defeated. To put it another way, the significance of any election
lies in the mechanism of reward and punishment set up by the
people and government according to the principles of social
contract.

Nobody knows what the people's verdict will be on the
government's record in our election. However, there are strong
arguments to say that the poll is more complicated than previous
ones.

First of all, the election needs to be related to an aging
president. It is possible that this made President Soeharto
reluctant to state explicitly his readiness to be re-elected and
that he would merely exhibit his personal support for a new
candidate after the count is held.

Even if the President accepts the candidacy, the views of the
new House of Representatives members remain vital due to their
right to elect the vice-president. As all people know,
constitutionally speaking, the vice president automatically
becomes president if the president cannot continue his job. It is
with this in mind that the new House members are going to have an
extraordinary privilege in the years to come.

It is then natural that the fight to win votes among the
political parties, particularly between Golkar, the dominant
party and the United Development Party (PPP), is going to be more
competitive than ever. Indeed, this growing competitiveness
emerged even before the campaign began, as was shown through a
the color war in Central Java.

To some extent, the "yellowization" (coloring public utilities
yellow, the color of Golkar) was a harbinger of the more massive
political mobilization in the campaign.

Unlike PPP and Golkar, the only other minority party allowed
by law, the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI), is likely to play
a marginal role in the election due to the weak legitimacy of the
Soerjadi leadership. This weak legitimacy has precipitated a
stronger rivalry between Golkar and PPP. The internal conflict
within PDI has also given Golkar and PPP a greater opportunity to
tap pro-Megawati PDI supporters.

However, efforts to take advantage of the rift will not be
easy, particularly as, and the government has also recognized
this, it is expected the number of voters not casting their
ballots will markedly increase.

In this context, it helps to look at the characteristics of
nonvoters in the United States. A survey there has shown that
those who refuse to take part in the election usually come from
middle class families and are mostly young people who are
concerned with political and social issues. They are either
graduates or at college. They do not vote because they have
discovered that years of participation have little permanent
impact on the system.

Keeping this in mind, it is very clear that nonparticipation
is a product of experience. In the context of Indonesia, the
nonparticipation could well be a result of the government's
stance in the PDI internal conflict.

By siding with Soerjadi -- who seized power from Megawati with
government backing -- the government has indirectly taught people
a misguided political lesson. For some, especially middle class
people in urban areas, such intervention has taught them that
political ethics in Indonesia is nothing more than immoral power
politics.

By the same token, they may have observed and witnessed how
the bureaucracy has nakedly used the language of power to
unilaterally shape Indonesia's political system. They may have
also learned that the best way to articulate and channel their
political interests is now not by voting but through
nonparticipation.

Increasingly critical political awareness is evident not only
in the middle classes, but also among laborers. As strikes have
become more frequent, one can also say that labor has become more
active in channeling its demands. Seen from a historical
viewpoint, there is no doubt that the labor sector has become
alienated from the political system.

In 1967, there were 1,501 registered labor unions and most
were affiliated to a political party. This large number of labor
unions can be attributed to the moderate government regulations.

In the past, it was legal to establish a labor union even if
there were only ten members. The regulations subsequently imposed
by the New Order government, the so-called state corporatism
policy, have blocked the establishment an effective recognized
union. The only official union is the All-Indonesia Workers
Union.

Moreover, the simplification of party politics in 1972, by
reducing the number of minority parties from 10 to two, hijacked
organized labor's political struggle. To some extent, the
simplification has created a feeling of losing an "adopted
father" among Indonesian workers. Furthermore, there has been a
tendency that any organization and people that are sympathetic to
the labor struggle tend to be branded leftists. These are more
often than not prohibited in Indonesia. As a result workers has
become more and more alienated from the system.

This does not mean to say the government has not made attempts
to lessen labor dissatisfaction. Indeed the government has
enacted a daily minimum wage and revised it almost every year.
However, since the cost of living in big cities has increased
because of inflation, the higher wages do not mean more money in
real terms. Therefore, it has come as no surprise that labor
strikes continue unabated. In Surabaya, for example, there has
been one strike almost every other day for some time.

Considering this imbroglio, it is possible that labor, along
with Megawati supporters and a significant proportion of the
middle class will not vote. Though the government has suggested
repeatedly that everyone should vote, it remains a big question
whether the voter turnout percentage will be higher than in 1992.

If the percentage is low, it would not be an exaggeration to
say that "the white group" exists as a political force in
Indonesia as a symbol of silent disobedience to and
disillusionment with the system. In the final analysis, however,
it seems to be a matter of political ethics what sort of impact
this will have on Indonesia.

The writer is a lecturer at the Faculty of Social and
Political Sciences, Airlangga University, Surabaya.