Presidential elections bill favors big parties: Observes
Presidential elections bill favors big parties: Observes
Kurniawan Hari, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
The decision made by the factions in the House of Representatives
(DPR) to maintain limitations on presidential candidacy
contradicts the 1945 Constitution and may deter opportunities for
a real change, away from the leaders of the larger parties,
political observers said on Saturday.
Director of the Center for Electoral Reform (CETRO) Smita
Notosusanto and political analyst Saldi Isra of Andalas
University in Padang, West Sumatra, opposed the limitations.
They said the quota for political parties to nominate
presidential candidates would restrict small parties.
Smita and Saldi also criticized the lack of articles in the
bill which enabled the public to monitor the campaign funding for
each presidential candidate.
The lack of public control of campaign funds would make it
much easier for the wealthier parties to seize the presidency.
Both analysts were commenting on the agreement by the nine
House factions over the much-anticipated presidential elections
bill. The bill is slated for endorsement on Monday.
The home ministry proposed that only political parties or
coalitions of parties with at least 20 percent of votes (or 15
percent of seats) in the House should be allowed to nominate
presidential candidates, but made an exception for the 2004
election (3 percent seats or 5 percent of votes).
Given the ministry's requirement, there could be only a
maximum of five candidates for the 2004 election.
After a series of negotiations, the nine factions in the House
and the government agreed to the special exception for the 2004
election.
"Still, that stipulation limits the choices of candidates
available to the public," Smita told The Jakarta Post.
Some political analysts have said that without a limitation,
there would be over 30 presidential candidates to be voted on,
with more obscure candidates given an opportunity.
Saldi, meanwhile, said that the limitation contradicted the
1945 Constitution because Article 6A, Paragraph 2 of the
Constitution states that presidential candidates and their
running mates can be nominated by any party or group of parties
contesting the elections.
He expressed fear that once the bill was passed into law, one
of the small parties could call for a review and this would
disrupt the elections.
Apart from criticizing the limit on candidates, analysts have
also protested the lack of articles allowing public monitoring of
election campaign funds.
A coalition of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) for
political laws has repeatedly called for transparency and a
limitation of campaign funds.
The coalition suggested that the bank accounts for campaign
funds of each candidate should have equal amounts with all
expenses recorded clearly.
"Transparency will ensure public knowledge of the spending of
each candidate," Smita added.
Smita emphasized that a direct presidential election would be
won by a candidate with the greatest campaign fund to buy airtime
and ads in the media.
The House factions, however, ignored the demand of the
coalition and decided not to limit the amount of campaign funds.
Smita reiterated that the lack of a campaign fund cap would
sideline candidates without big budgets.