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.