The Golput phenomenon

The Golput phenomenon

When Megawati Soekarnoputri announced last week her intention
not to vote in the May 29 general election, it was very much what
everyone had expected. After all, she has been excluded from the
election system that does not recognize her as the leader of the
Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI).

It was a statement that Megawati had to make, if only to make
known her position to her loyal PDI supporters, who are still
numerous judging by their outpouring in the streets during the
recently concluded election campaign.

Her statement displeased the government, which fears her
supporters would also boycott the election. Still, the statement
was tactful. She did not urge others to follow in her footsteps,
but told them to use their conscience in deciding whether or not
to use their right to vote on May 29. The 1985 Election Law
stipulates that voting is a right and not an obligation, but
calling on others not to vote is a criminal offense. The result
of the election will tell whether the fear was founded.

By going public with her intention, Megawati has put herself
at the top of the list of Golongan Putih (White Group), or Golput
for short, a political term used to describe those discontented
with the political system. They either stay away from polling
booths on election day or spoil their ballot papers. Few people
have been willing to risk being branded as members of Golput by
publicly announcing they will not vote.

Golput surfaced in the first general election held under
President Soeharto in 1971. Since then, the controversy on
whether one should or should not vote has been so politicized by
both sides of the fence that there appears to be no middle
ground. Those who vote are seen as supporters of the system, and
those who don't are marked as opponents.

There are many reasons not to vote, just as there are many
reasons why one should vote. Discontent is one reason and apathy
another, but one could include infirmity and other difficulties
in getting to the polling booths. Unfortunately, because of the
strong obsession with a large voter turnout, people who do not
vote have always been branded as members of Golput.

Voter turnout in the six elections under President Soeharto
has been about 90 percent, comparatively large compared with
other countries, except where voting is obligatory by law.
Because of the Golput phenomenon in Indonesia, there seems to be
a consensus in both camps that the abstention rate is a measure,
though a rough one, of the level of people's discontent with the
system.

This explains why many people were so upset at Megawati's
statement, and also why the government and the three parties
contesting the election -- Golkar, the United Development Party
and the PDI under Soerjadi -- have gone out of their way to
encourage people to vote in Thursday's general election.

It is unfortunate that some campaigners have, knowingly or
not, resorted to intimidation to get people to vote. Several
campaigners have branded those who do not vote as opponents of
the Pancasila political system, or as "free riders" in national
development. Others have said those who vote are "good citizens"
and those who don't are "bad citizens". One could counterargue
that good citizens are those who abide by the law, pay taxes and
refrain from any form of corruption, which all parties, judging
by their campaign slogans, agree is a malady in our country.

Given the increasing intensity in the Golput debate and the
confusion it has created, it is time to ponder whether or not
voting should be made obligatory once and for all. This would
spare the need for intimidation and creating fear among people to
get a large voter turnout. If the election is an instrument of
political education for the masses, intimidation defeats that
objective. As long as the law makes voting an act of free choice,
then the ultimate decision on whether or not to use that right
must be the individual's conscience, free from all kinds of
pressure, fear and intimidation.