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.