Quest for suitable campaign rules

Quest for suitable campaign rules

YOGYAKARTA (JP): The United Development Party (PPP) and the
Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) behaved in a predictable manner
to the official-set election campaign guidelines -- they made
muffled sounds of protest but accepted them.

Golkar dismissed the protests and accepted the regulations
completely.

The PPP and PDI have aired basically similar grievances. They
doubted the rules would put them on the same foothold with
Golkar, which, with great material and human resources at its
disposal, has access to voters all year round.

The government eventually made some changes, including lifting
a planned ban on political parties campaigning in rural areas.
But the PPP and PDI agreed that it was a small concession given
that they could not take full advantage of those changes.

"We have no cadres to run our campaigns in villages," PPP's
chairman, Ismail Hasan Metareum, said recently. In addition,
limited financial and human resources hampered its way.

"How can the PPP and PDI fight against Golkar when we have no
chance of introducing our programs to people in villages and
remote areas?" he asked then.

The minority parties objections to the rules reflected their
doubt that the government -- as the election organizer -- could
be impartial and that they would be exempted from discriminatory
treatment from the bureaucracy.

This doubt was expressed during the three contestants'
meetings in October last year, with the National Council for
Defense and Security, which President Soeharto commissioned to
draw up the draft guidelines. Representatives of the PPP and PDI
struggled to have the rules revised there and then, citing the
same reason that Golkar used to accept the guidelines: a quality
election.

Their protests failed, as did their subsequent suggestion that
open debates be held among the three contestants. Golkar
dismissed it.

"We don't need to imitate the election campaigns in liberal
countries," Golkar leader Abdul Gafur said as the reason for his
party's refusal.

The council's secretary-general, Soekarto, agreed. "The
various (missions) that the contending parties offer during the
election are not to be debated because each has different
concepts to offer. Debates on them would be futile," Soekarto
argued.

Some analysts have argued that it is precisely the
differences in the political contestants' visions that should be
highlighted in order to help voters reach their decisions.

The PPP and PDI had hoped that all of their objections to the
campaign rules would be accommodated in the presidential decree,
which was issued in December. As it turned out, however, the
decree was accompanied by technical directives from the home
affairs minister, information minister and from the National
Police chief, which reportedly caused PPP and PDI even greater
frustration.

There are, of course, proponents for the rules, who see them
as more fitting for the more educated and critical public of
today. Rhetorics in massive gatherings would not satisfy them as
they did in the previous elections.

Election campaigning where dialogs are held and street rallies
reduced are deemed more in line with the concept of "campaigning"
and is hoped to produce a better quality election.

"Rallies are not campaigning," said Riswandha Imawan, a staff
lecturer at the Gadjah Mada University's School of Social and
Political Sciences in Yogyakarta.

"Campaigns should be held in order to woo public support,
rather than just a gathering of one's supporters," he said.

"Campaigning in the form of dialogs, where audiences and
participants are not limited to only one political contestant's
supporters, reflects the true sense of campaigning," he said.

Regardless of whether one method of campaigning is more
superior than others, most people are certain that Golkar stands
to benefit from the reportedly restrictive rules. The dominant
grouping is much better prepared than the other parties.

"Golkar is the most prepared for either public rallies or
dialogs," Riswandha said. "It has not only plenty of quality
campaign speakers but also almost unlimited funds for that
purpose."

Besides, he said, Golkar officials -- from the level of
cabinet ministers to the lowest level of bureaucracy -- have
conducted early electioneering.

Majority

Political observer Amien Rais agreed. "Through various
official forums and meetings over the past few years, Golkar has
conducted 'disguised' election campaigning," he said. "Everybody
knows that if a bureaucracy figure lectures, anywhere and
anytime, he or she also brings the voice of Golkar."

He pointed to various detailed directives, including the
stipulation to solicit police permission for campaign speakers or
for the use of transportation, as contributing to the
disadvantages that the PPP and PDI experience.

"Those regulations are strangling the PPP and PDI because
their campaign speakers would not be able to express their own
aspirations freely," Amien said. He added that such campaigning
could not benefit the public, who need to be exposed to novel,
promising and more realistic perspectives.

"With such regulations, I doubt we could have heated debates
which could eventually convince the public of an issue," he said.
"Campaign speeches wouldn't be able to beat the popularity of the
television comedy show Srimulat."

Amien speculated that the guidelines were designed to help
Golkar retain its majority. Some of the changes made later in the
election campaign rules were not essential enough to ensure
quality elections, he argued.

Besides, directives that were issued later and at the lower
level might not be translated into actions. "Out there in the
field, the people in charge of polling booths are bureaucrats
wearing the uniform of Korpri (Indonesian Civil Servants Corps),
who are, of course, members of Golkar," said Riswandha Imawan.

"So, how can we hope that election campaigning can serve as a
public education means, so that our people know enough to
exercise their rights to vote?" he said. (team)