The 'White Group' expresses its disenchantment

The 'White Group' expresses its disenchantment

Endy M. Bayuni, Deputy Chief Editor, The Jakarta Post,
Cambridge, Massachusetts

How many people will stay away from the polling booths on
April 5, or whenever the general election is eventually held? The
number of people who boycott the election has always been a
subject of a heated debate and speculation each time the country
holds an election. This year, political pundits predict that the
number of those who choose not to vote will increase once again
amidst growing disenchantment with the pace of political reforms
under President Megawati Soekarnoputri.

Those who purposefully boycott the election are still referred
today as the Golongan Putih (or Golput in local slang). While it
literally means the White Group, it has nothing to do with race.
Instead, it refers to the blank ballots they intend to cast,
either by not punching the ballot paper, or by destroying it when
they are inside the polling booth.

The term was coined in 1971 to counter the mighty Golkar,
Soeharto's political machine that won all six pseudo-elections
held during his 3-decade reign as a means to achieve some
semblance of political legitimacy. It was a political statement
by those who viewed the election as a farce and sought to
discredit Golkar, or Golongan Karya (Functional Group).

The Golput phenomena survives today although the term no
longer is used to attack Golkar exclusively, but the entire
electoral system, and to some extent, Megawati's Indonesian
Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P). Several student
organizations have already announced that they were joining the
ranks of this year's Golput.

The number of members of the White Group has never been known
because some people stay away on election day for other reasons,
and disenchantment may only be one of them. But whatever their
size is, voter turnouts, both during Soeharto's time and in the
first post-Soeharto election in 1999, have always been impressive
by international standards. In the six elections Soeharto held,
turnout never fell below 87 percent. In 1999, the first time
Indonesia held a free and democratic election in four decades,
turnout reached an impressive 93 percent.

These are figures that any democracy would envy. Most new
democracies in Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia would be
satisfied with a 60 percent to 70 percent turnout, while most
established democracies would be quite content with a 50 percent
to 60 percent turnout.

A study by Stockholm-based International (IDEA) on voter
turnout in elections in the world since 1945 put Indonesia in 8th
place. The average turnout for the seven elections Indonesia has
held is 91.5 percent of all registered voters. Australia and
Singapore, where voting is compulsory, top the table,
respectively with average turnouts of 94.5 percent out of 22
elections and 93.5 percent out of eight elections.

Admittedly, Indonesia's high turnout during the Soeharto years
was achieved through the use of coercion to get the votes out,
and through ballot rigging, including counting those Golput
ballots as Golkar's.

But 1999 was probably an exception to the rule, because
enthusiasm ran high for a nation that had just been liberated
from the chains of repression. People had a wider range of choice
-- 48 independent political parties to choose from, instead of
just the three government-controlled parties under Soeharto. This
year, voters still face a choice of 24 political parties, and for
the first time, they also have an option to choose the candidates
in their respective electoral districts, instead of just the
party.

Still, most pundits agree that the turnout this year will not
likely reach as high as 1999, mostly attributed to
discontentment, not only with the current government of Megawati,
but at the political system and the election. What they have not
figured out is the size, although most agree that it will still
remain insignificant by international standards.

In the absence of real statistics for Golput, the closest way
of gauging its size is from the left over ballots and perhaps the
a percentage of spoiled ballots. Their number could not have been
more than 13 percent in the worst of times in 1987, and seven
percent at best in 1999.

In other countries, such numbers would be considered too
paltry to be seriously debated. So, then, why has there been such
a big fuss over Golput?

Over the last several decades, and certainly during the
Golkar-Soeharto years, Golput was a political movement against
Soeharto's political system. People voted with their feet. Golput
became a form of civil disobedience that attracted disenchanted
university students. They managed to evade arrest because no law
required them to vote. The law only made it a crime if you
encouraged or intimidated others not to vote. While the movement
was never widespread, it was enough to ruffle a few feathers in
the Soeharto regime.

Megawati Soekarnoputri, the incumbent president and chairman
of PDI-P, used this tactic in 1997, the last general election
under Soeharto, when she publicly announced that she was not
going to exercise her right to vote, and urged her supporters in
PDI (as her party was then called) to use their conscience in
deciding whether to vote or not. She tactfully avoided making an
outright call on them to follow her, which would have been a
violation of the law, although it was clearly implied.

Instead, it was the Bishop Conference of Indonesia (KWI)
leaders who were summoned by the authorities for telling
parishioners that, "it is not a sin" not to vote if they felt
that none of the three contesting parties represented their
political interests.

It is a twist of irony then that, if we fast-forward to
September 2003, President Megawati had the audacity to criticize
the Golput folk as "bad citizens" when she met with the chairman
of the General Election Commission, Nazaruddin Sjamsuddin.
Several other officials of the government and her PDI-P have
since also denounced Golput in the current run up to the general
election.

Obviously, now that they have donned the mantle of the ruling
party, they are concerned about their own image and reputation.
They probably feel that they have made many changes in the
political system and electoral laws that this year's election
would be far more democratic, free and fair than past elections.

Granted that, but we also have to admit that the system is far
from perfect and that there is always room for improvement. Even
with 24 political parties, there are bound to be people who feel
that they are still not represented.

The fact of the matter is that so long as voting is considered
simply a right and not an obligation, people also have the right
not to vote, and this right should be respected by all, and most
of all the government.

Intimidating or coercing others into voting should be seen as
infringing upon people's rights, just as encouraging or
intimidating others not to vote is. People have the right to be
disenchanted and to express this disenchantment by staying away
from the polling booth on election day.

For all we know, those who stay away on voting day could just
as well vote for the 25th non-existent party. It would be like
ticking "none of the above" on the ballot. As a measurement of
voters' disenchantment, it would probably not be a bad idea to
include one such box in the ballot paper. We could accomplish two
things at the same time: Bolster turnout, and find out how much
real disenchantment there is today. Alas, that choice is not
available in this year's ballot.

Our democracy can live with a less than perfect electoral
turnout. In fact, even a 60 percent turnout would, by
international standards, still be acceptable. Anything less,
certainly for a new democracy like Indonesia, would be regarded
as a thumbs-down by a huge portion of the electorate. The elected
government would be ruling with weak legitimacy.

But politicians and pundits are not wrong in raising the
concern at this early stage. Many other countries are grappling
with the problem of low voter turnout. In the United States,
where turnout in 2000 reached just above 50 percent of the voting
age population, it is mainly, though not exclusively, about a
generational issue.

The post baby-boomer generation is more likely not to vote,
according to Pippa Norris in her seminal work Democratic Phoenix.
former Democratic candidate Howard Dean won over some of them,
and even managed to get them to participate in his campaign for
the primaries. But now that he is out of the race, these young
people are likely to stay away again in November.

Indonesia needs to deal with the issue before it becomes too
big. In a democracy, voting is one form of people's political
participation. Granted that there are other forms of civic
engagement, but the health of democracy, especially a new one
like Indonesia, is determined to a large extent by voter turnout.

Lest we change the law and make it mandatory for people to
vote, the use of coercion is certainly not an option. Instead, we
need to address the disenchantment, find out why people are
staying away on ballot day. In most cases, we will probably find
that it is because they do not care about politics. Since it is
now the practice to review the electoral law every five years,
then the lessons of 2004 should be taken in drafting the new law
for 2009.

Ultimately, it is up to the 24 parties in this year's election
to get the people out on April 5. In an election that is going to
be closely contested, every vote counts, and the task for the
contesting parties is to attract voters.

The writer is currently studying at Harvard University under
fellowships jointly provided by the Nieman Foundation, the Ford
Foundation and the Asia Foundation.