Suitable or democratic election?

Suitable or democratic election?

The Indonesian Institute of Sciences is now looking at the
nation's election system and the political role of the Armed
Forces (ABRI) upon the request of the head of state. Noted
sociologist Soetandyo Wignjosoebroto reminds us that democracy
encompasses a broader realm than an election system.

SURABAYA (JP): Late last month President Soeharto asked the
Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) to conduct studies on the
most appropriate electoral system for Indonesia and the political
role of the military in the future.

Expectations are rising that the results of this research will
make a significant contribution to the enhancement of democracy
in the political life of this country.

Any idea coming from the President will never go unnoticed.
Communicated in the setting of a political culture with strong
Javanese characteristics, every idea of the President always
carries significance and is always regarded as a parentah alus
(veiled instruction). It will thus bring important political
implications and consequences.

As the studies to be conducted by the science institute are
still in their initial stages, it is not surprising that the
entire public discourse on the subject consists only of
hypothetical and counter-hypothetical statements. Two major
questions that have been raised over and over are: (1) Is it true
that the district-based electoral system will be capable of
ensuring truer representation practices as opposed to the
proportional system? (2) Is it true that the fewer the appointed
representatives from the military in the House of Representatives
(DPR), the more representative it will be and the more capable it
will be of doing its job in a democratic manner?

As to the first question, many have contended that the
district-based election system will guarantee democratization of
the House better than the proportional system we have been using
up to now. In a district-based election, they say, the electors
will be able to elect their representatives directly, and those
elected will have stronger awareness of their responsibility as
representatives of their constituents. Consequently, they can be
expected to give priority to their voters' interests rather than
to those of the organizations with which they identify
themselves.

Our question is then whether this will indeed be the case. The
counter-argument to this hypothesis goes as follows: In reality,
whether or not an election can be deemed democratic does not
depend exclusively on the election system used. Instead, it
depends on how freely and confidentially the election is carried
out. No matter which election system we use, if the organizers
tamper with the process in any way at all, and if the organizers
consist generally of bureaucrats who have their own vested
interests as far as the votes are concerned, it will be difficult
to make the general election a totally democratic political
process.

As long as the political parties -- which serve as the mouth
piece for the aspirations of the people -- do not enjoy freedom
of movement, no type of general election can ensure democracy. As
long as the masses of voters are left unattached (floating mass
theory) and can be easily influenced by mass or political
organizations that are closely affiliated to government entities,
no election will successfully secure democracy. In fact, the
political parties will become powerless in each of these
electoral districts and unable to compete with political figures
who, nota bene, have survived due to support from the government.

As to the second question, it is difficult to ascertain
whether a total elimination, or a reduced number, of appointed
Armed Forces members in the House will indeed lead to optimal
democratization. Regardless of the electoral system used, as long
as the election itself is nothing more than a formal process for
legitimizing the emergence of particular figures and cadres --
most of whom have been prepared by the government in power -- it
will not matter whether the representatives are appointed or
elected. In either case, they will continue to need the blessings
from the executive branch, whether they belong to the civilian or
military group.

The concepts of democracy and democratization have a scope
much larger than just the issues of electoral system and the
mechanism of appointment of members of the House. Democracy and
democratization are more a question of commitment, they are far
above and beyond the choice of system and mechanism. Democracy,
in the context of a nation and state, requires the full and
honest commitment from politicians to give unrestricted opportu
nities to every citizen to participate -- both directly and indi
rectly -- in every public or state affair.

Regardless of the choice of the system and mechanism, in the
absence of goodwill and the commitment to recognize that sover
eignty should be in the hands of the people, it will be futile to
expect that the process of democratization will take place or
that democracy is truly in the making in this country. Political
institutions can evolve or they can be modified, but as long as
the basic premises do not change -- from the idea of the state's
sovereignty to that of the people's sovereignty, from feudalistic
policies to populist principles -- no institutional change will
bring a substantial effect.

The studies to be conducted by researchers at the science
institute will make a far more valuable contribution to the
Indonesian nation and the people if they are not limited to just
examining the election system and the socio-political role of the
Armed Forces in the House. The science institute will also make a
more valuable contribution if it expands the study to cover the
quality of commitment of Indonesian politicians to a way of life
that is more democratic than what we have had so far.

The writer is a professor of sociology at Airlangga
University, Surabaya.