Security, ideas clash in campaign

By Ramlan Surbakti

SURABAYA (JP): Each general election has its own characteristics in line with the existing political makeup. The May 29 election, the sixth under the New Order government, is no exception.

There are at least four distinctive characteristics that distinguish the May 29 poll from previous elections.

First, the exclusion of a political force with strong supporters. A whole central board of the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) whose chairperson was democratically elected, the only leader elected that way in the history of the New Order, has been ousted from the political arena. This was done without "rule of law" (reference to the party's constitution) but by "rule by using the law" (picking up a certain part of the constitution as a justification for the action) aimed at serving external interests.

PDI's leadership rift is chronic. Its leadership has always rivaled the one recognized by the government. But the government's recent move to dismiss a leader elected democratically in a national conference as a rival leader is a serious mistake.

This is not only because the PDI central board enjoyed huge support throughout the country, with numbers excelling those in support of a previous rival board, but also because it was not a counter party. It was elected democratically according to the party's constitution.

It is the first time in New Order history that a party's central board, which has been elected democratically, has not participated in the election campaign not because it opposes the government but because it was ousted from the political stage for fear of becoming an alternative political force.

It is not surprising that in PDI strongholds such as Surabaya, Malang, Jember, Manado, Denpasar, Surakarta, Yogyakarta and Semarang, the government-backed PDI central board faced difficulties in holding rallies due to supporters of the Megawati-led PDI central board.

Second, the government's concern over the substantial number of people who choose to abstain from voting. Abstaining from voting is not a new phenomenon, but its widespread token signifies not only higher political awareness but also a moral action.

The government has taken at least four measures to curb the spread of non-voting. First, to arrest and interrogate the people who advise others not to vote, as experienced by students of the Gadjah Mada and Jember universities. Second, TVRI newscasters have taken the time to appeal to the people to use their voting right. Third, in speeches by government officials non-voters have been called irresponsible citizens. Fourth, the appeal to religious and youth organizations to issue joint statements urging people to use their voting right.

The government's anxiety has stemmed from two factors. First, an increase in the number of non-voters is considered a sign of declining support for the regime and hence its legitimacy to rule.

Second, the success of the election is measured, among other things, by the total number of people using their right to vote and the orderly way the election is held as a matter of prestige, respect and good conduct which benefits the future career of government officials.

The third characteristic is the tight security surrounding the election and the threatening attitude toward those impeding it. This can be seen from the actions against mock rioters, shows of force, and the mobilization of troops including command troops.

In western countries, this kind of measure falls into a mental terror category because coercive measures can only be taken against violators of the law and not against people's intention and thoughts. The authorities have said it is better to prevent a fire than put out a fire.

And finally, the safety to organize and attend a rally has become an overriding issue even though preparations to "safeguard" the election have been made.

The campaign's themes presented as a well-rehearsed "monolog" and "dialog" are broadcast on public radio and television stations or presented in public meetings. But the first nine days of the 1997 election campaign have been marred by disturbances.

Every day the media has reported disturbances by rival parties such as the removal of party symbols, motorcades destroying or robbing property of motorists as well as blocking traffic, clashes with security forces (like in Pasuruan) and the injury of more than 30 people.

Even party supporters do not feel safe organizing public rallies. But it does not seem to bother the younger generation, particularly those from the poorer communities who need an outlet to vent their pent-up emotions over many years of hardship.

They consult the campaign schedules not to avoid them but to join them. If this continues, it is likely the majority of citizens will grow to dislike election campaigns and may boycott election day.

The writer is a lecturer at Airlangga University, Surabaya.