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.