Poll watchdog controversy
Call it chaotic, confusing, or whatever. Still, the fact remains that for weeks the public has been confused by the seemingly contradictory statements from high ranking officials on the official government stance regarding the Independent Election Monitoring Committee (KIPP), which was established last month. Armed Forces Chief Gen. Feisal Tanjung, for example, has repeatedly said that the committee is unconstitutional and that the military will not recognize it. Although he acknowledged that every citizen has the right to monitor the election he said this particular committee's existence is at odds with current laws.
At the same time, however, another high ranking officer said that the independent watchdog organization will not be banned as long as it does not cause instability. "KIPP has stated that it wants an honest and fair election. If its existence is for a good cause, why should we ban it?" the officer was reported to have said. Still another officer reportedly said that the Armed Forces welcomes the monitoring body "as long as it does not break the law or interfere in the function of the official Election Supervision Committee."
This confusion was exacerbated by different responses from cabinet ministers. Some said that the Independent Election Monitoring Committee is okay, but others called on the public to be cautious regarding its existence.
These mixed signals apparently have also confused provincial officials and organizations. Some have allowed the setting up of monitoring committee branches, while others have taken the rather drastic measure of intimidating the people planning to set up poll watchdogs in their respective areas. In Pandeglang, West Java, 3,000 ulemas and martial art masters organized a rally to denounce the poll monitoring body's existence in their district. In East Java a new organization which calls itself the Independent Body to Monitor KIPP was established early this week, apparently by pro-government parties to harass poll watchdog activists.
We are afraid that all this confusion, if unchecked, may lead to a difficult situation. Although any observer can see that the independent committee has received widespread support nationwide, it is obvious that there are parties within the government who are still wary of this poll watchdog. Although the initial fear that the committee may interfere with the official election mechanism has been dismissed by a statement from the committee itself which pledges only monitor the election, certain officials continue to have difficulty welcoming the idea of some "outsider" monitoring the election.
In this context we are afraid that even President Soeharto's statement the other day that the public has the right to monitor the implementation of next year's general election and that anyone can report any irregularities to the Electoral Supervision Committee, will not stop the controversy over the independent monitoring committee. The reason is that President Soeharto did not specifically mention that poll watchdog in his remarks, thus leaving open the possibility of different interpretations regarding its existence.
Chances are that the controversy may become worse unless there is some clear-cut signal from somebody high up. Meanwhile, the passivity on the part of the monitoring committee with regard to opening itself up to public scrutiny should be questioned. It is time for the public to know more about its plans and programs. The monitoring committee's main strength lies in the public's support and participation, but if people are kept in the dark too long, they may lose their initial interest and enthusiasm. If this were to happen, the loss would not only be that of the monitoring committee, but also of every Indonesian to whom the idea of active participation in the proper execution of the upcoming general election appeals.