Observers slam KPU for lack of transparency

Observers slam KPU for lack of transparency

Moch. N. Kurniawan, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

A number of organizations criticized on Tuesday the General
Elections Commission (KPU) for its failure to consult the public
in many of its roles.

"We respect KPU members who are independent and credible. But
they have so far issued a number of questionable policies without
the participation of the public," Laode Ida of the Center for
Regional Development Studies (PSPK) told a discussion to evaluate
the performance of the current KPU since its establishment last
year.

Criticism also came from the Elections Supervisory Committee
(Panwaslu) and the Center for Indonesian Law and Policy Studies
(PSHK).

KPU is preparing for the direct elections of legislative
members and the president next year.

Laode said that examples of KPU's poor performance included,
traces of a mark-up in the distribution of population census
forms, the extension of the population census period and its
controversial decision to procure operational cars without a
tender.

KPU also seems to be unaware of the unrest caused by its
proposal to allocate Rp 649 billion (US$76.3 million) of its
budget, which comes from taxpayers' money, to construct houses
for its members, Laode said.

The absence of transparency in KPU, he added, was proven by
its failure to make public all information via its website,
including the process of some tenders, as claimed by several KPU
members.

KPU was also considered weak in dealing with political
parties, according to Laode, as apparent in its failure to punish
parties that held election rallies under the mask of cadre
gatherings.

KPU had said earlier it could not take action against the
parties as such activities could not be considered election
campaigns until the parties were declared eligible. The
commission will announce eligible parties on Dec, 2.

"We have seen KPU emerge as a super and overconfident
institution that produces policies without public participation,"
Laode concluded.

He warned KPU that it could no longer rely on the confidence
of the public if it maintained its current standards.

Saut H. Sirait of Panwaslu and Bivitri Susanti of PSHK shared
Laode's view.

However, Saut said it was difficult for Panwaslu to discover
any violations committed by KPU as the supervisory commission
fell under KPU's auspices.

He said it was the House of Representatives' jobs to supervise
the KPU, but this was not the case due to various political
interests.

In the absence of the House's control, Saut expected
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), such as PSPK, PSHK, and
monitoring agencies including the Independent Committee for
Election Monitoring (KIPP) and the Rector Forum, to take
initiative.

Meanwhile, Bivitri suggested that the NGOs alliance promote
public monitoring of KPU, and should file lawsuits against KPU
for issuing policies that were not beneficial to the public.