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.