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.