Poll watchdog fears groundless

Poll watchdog fears groundless

A number of people set up an Independent Election Monitoring Committee this month with an eye to next year's election. Political scientist Riswandha Imawan argues that the apprehension expressed by some parties is unfounded.

YOGYAKARTA (JP): The nation entered a new stage in its political history when a group of people set up the Independent Election Monitoring Committee on March 15, 1996. The birth of the group, aptly labeled a pro-democracy movement, evoked prompt response. Those who have profited from the current system expressed strong disapproval, calling the committee's existence unconstitutional. Those who feel politically disadvantaged, however, quickly rallied to support the new committee.

A third group, comprised of mainly intellectuals and political analysts, are taking a neutral position and are investigating the reason behind the committee's birth, its purposes and what it can accomplish. I belong to this group.

In my opinion, there are two major reasons why the committee came into existence. First, the widespread arrogance of power which is a reflection of the deterioration of the understanding of political ethics. Second, there has been no progress in the way elections are carried out over the past five elections.

The arrogance of power is all too obvious in the way the ruling political grouping Golkar garners the masses' support through what they call their "Meet the Cadres" program. The media reports on this program have been so intense that it has given rise to a popular expression of "not a single day passes without support garnering".

This political maneuvering, the sole purpose of which is to preempt the upcoming 1997 campaign period, has seemingly been ignored by the government. This obviously provokes powerful reactions from other political groupings. Such electioneering can only backfire on Golkar. The recent spontaneous rally by hundreds of supporters of the less influential United Development Party and the Indonesian Democratic Party should remind Golkar to watch its step.

Many more actions reflecting the arrogance of the ruling elite are still fresh in my mind. Some examples are the construction of a multibillion rupiah house for the Central Java governor, the purchase of luxurious cars for regents of South Sulawesi, the construction of a massive swimming pool for the Bekasi Regent and the statement made by the mayor of Surabaya that he wielded the power to destroy local reporters.

If we hold that politics should be based on the principles of democracy, then a prerequisite is the idea of give and take. A true democrat would tell his rival: "I disagree with every word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The Indonesian people who claim to uphold the values of mutual cooperation (gotong royong), familism and consensus should stand fast to this principle.

During the past five elections, however, attitudes of distrust and the power approach have gradually replaced the elements of give and take. Typical Golkar rhetoric like, "to win the 1997 Election for the sake of the unity of the nation based on state ideology Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution" and for the sake of the "continuation of the national leadership of the New Order," (Kompas March 18, 1996) drive home the message that other political forces threaten the nation's unity. They also imply that other political forces do not belong to the New Order. Such rhetoric is clearly misleading and detrimental to political education.

Along with the deceptive rhetoric, reports of vote rigging by one of the three political parties are ample. This includes the display of only one of the symbols of the three contestants, and the deliberate punching of an additional hole to render votes belonging to other groups invalid. Such behavior has smashed the commitment of the New Order government to empower the people through democracy and led by the wisdom of deliberation among representatives.

I believe the crux of the problem is that the entire election is administered by the state. They control the regulation and operation of elections. The state has the ability to force its will and put its bureaucracy in a very advantageous position.

Despite the successful staging of elections since 1971, many things need to be corrected. Public participation is needed to correct the problems, since it is the people's votes that are at stake. It is true that this can be done through the state election monitoring agency, but, keeping in mind the power of state-corporatism in Indonesia, the impartiality of the agency should be doubted.

The new independent committee can help erode these doubts. It wishes to convey to the public that elections are still worth while. The government should have no qualms about accepting it. The committee can even strengthen the concept that elections are run on the principles of democracy. On top of this, it is doubtful the committee could monitor the tens of thousands of voting booths spread across the country. Supervising the transfer of the ballot boxes to each regional election committee would be even harder.

So why all this fuss about the committee? I believe the fuss stems from the fear that the committee, like Namfrel in the Philippines and Pollwatch in Thailand, will lead to the downfall of a political regime. This is an unfounded anxiety because Indonesia has different social conditions and practices different democratic principles than the two other Southeast Asian states.

The writer is a political science lecturer at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta.