Raising quality of democracy in polls

Raising quality of democracy in polls

By Kastorius Sinaga

JAKARTA (JP): The future election, when seen from a political
aspect, is the most interesting in the history of the New Order.
Different from previous elections, the sixth is, for instance, an
open confrontation between candidate supporters, which recently
intensified to levels of mass destruction. Repeated riots over
the past three weeks in Pekalongan are an example of the intense
conflict prior to the election.

In this election, the idea of golput has not been spreading to
progressive intellectuals alone, it has become an alternative for
groups who were victims of government power. Golput is an acronym
for a group of people who decide not to vote in an election.

Former PDI leader Megawati, who was ousted through government
intervention, has recently decided not to participate in the
coming election campaign. This has generated understanding among
followers that they should not vote in the election.

Besides that, it has been the first time in the history of the
New Order that an independent supervising institute (KIPP) has
been established and run by a non-government organization, with
intellectuals and public leaders monitoring any violation of a
social political nature before next month's election.

Observing this phenomenon, many believe that if the quality of
democracy was taken away from participating groups, the public
stage could become an arena of conflict between people and the
government.

The New Order has, so far, been successful in operating past
elections in a secure, timely and orderly way. This achievement
has been important in shaping a positive image of the New Order,
especially internationally. The international world recognizes
the New Order's legal power, and this has become the driving
force behind the Indonesian government's decision to make the
election a success.

Seen from a different perspective, quality of democracy must
be viewed comparatively and not as the main objective of the
election process.

In this context, it is not surprising if a majority of the
public perceives the election as a "political project", so that
the government perpetuates its own power. This became obvious
when the government replaced the "honest and fair" principle with
its "immediately free but secretive" rule (luber, as it is known
in its Indonesian acronym), a prevailing practice in the election
system of Indonesia.

It has become very clear to the government, that the election
would be useful as a prerequisite for democracy. It was not meant
to be instrumental in improving or increasing quality of
democracy. It is therefore not surprising if the criteria for
election success is measured with a technical and artificial
yardstick, through campaign regulations.

A reluctance to further raise quality of democracy through the
election reveals a basic flaw in the political system. This
becomes apparent in when influence is compared to the public's
political views. During the New Order's 30-year reign, the public
has undergone a "depoliticization" process, a floating masses
concept. At the same time, the public has been politically
mobilized by a bureaucratic government.

Nearly all public leaders and organizations have been pooled
by the government to get rid of perceptions that the government
is against the people. It is not going to be the other way around
in a conceptualized civil society. Independently existing
organizations function on behalf of public interest under the
umbrella of arbitrary authority.

In such cases, the government believes that the public is
useless as the main foundation of legal power. The masses are
regarded as an object or 'political commodity' which needs to be
mobilized only when government power has to be extended. For this
reason, the election is thought of as a moment to reconfirm
legitimacy from the public. During elections of the New Order, a
change of power is unimaginable.

Today, the public is becoming more aware of problems in the
upper-levels of government. Disappointment in the government,
combined with a frustrating social economy, is growing. A crisis
in public trust will be going on until election quality has
increased.

In this case, maybe the massive riots which occurred, and
could occur during the election campaign, are a public
manifestation of disappointment and political frustration.

The writer is a lecturer in the Postgraduate Program at the
University of Indonesia, Jakarta.