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.