To vote or not to vote?

To vote or not to vote?

With legislative elections less than three months away, the
hurdles in the way of smooth and orderly polls appear to be
looming increasingly large on Indonesia's political landscape. As
of yesterday, for example, only 1,812 -- or less than 20 percent
-- of the total 8,871 legislative candidates registered with the
General Elections Commission (KPU) had managed to pass the first
mandatory screening as prescribed by electoral law.

That, however, should surprise no one given the fact that as
the deadline approached last weekend, all of the 24 political
parties eligible to contest the elections came rushing forward to
register their candidates with the commission at the eleventh
hour, led by the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).
Not surprisingly either, the Commission attributed the
candidates' dismal performance in passing its screening to one or
more of three main reasons: Failure to show a certificate of good
health, failure to declare personal wealth, and failure to
produce a certificate attesting to a lack of a criminal record
issued by a district court in the place where the candidate
resides.

It takes little imagination to envisage the frustration of the
candidates having to endure this country's infamous bureaucratic
red tape. Indeed, there have been many reports of legislative
candidates resorting to forging fake university diplomas and ID
papers to make it through the screening procedures. As a
consequence, the General Elections Commission has in recent days
been badgered by protests and requests for the deadline to be
pushed back to give newly formed parties more time to make their
existence known and introduce their political platforms and
programs to the public. The commission, for its part, has
persisted in its stance of sticking to the timetable set for it
for fear that any delay on its part would upset the whole general
election schedule, with all of the risks this would imply.

If all this sounds exasperating enough, consider the balloting
procedures that are prescribed by the General Elections Law
passed in recent months by the House of Representatives. The new
law does away with the old, familiar system of one general
election to select members the members of the House of
Representatives (DPR) and the People's Consultative Assembly
(MPR), with the election of the country's president and vice
president being left to the latter. Voters simply punched a hole
through the symbol of the party of their choice and left the
political decision-making to the legislators nominated by these
parties.

Following the fall of the Soeharto regime in 1998 and the
subsequent dawning of the reform era and democratization,
however, sufficient pressure was brought to bear by the public on
the national legislature to make it comply, at least in part,
with demands for the amendment of the 1945 Constitution -- a
legacy of the 1945 independence revolution, which its critics say
leaves the door wide open for abuses by dictators and autocrats.
Hence, a new system of direct elections was introduced.

From the democratic point of view, the new system, which for
the first time in this country's 58-year history gives the voters
the right to directly elect their president, is obviously a big
step forward. For millions of voters, especially in rural areas,
the new procedures are fairly complicated. In the upcoming
legislative elections, which are slated to be held on April 5,
voters can punch a hole in the symbol of the party of their
choice as well as in the picture of the candidate they favor.

Lest unschooled voters get too confused and make mistakes,
however, the law still allows voters to simply punch the party
symbol of their choice and leave the rest to the party, as was
the case in the old system -- a provision that has caused some
fears that the new system will, after all, be no different from
the old, considering that millions of politically uneducated
Indonesians might simply not know or care enough about the
personalities listed to make a well-considered and educated
choice. Add to this the torrent of reports of old-style
politicians dominating the current Indonesian body politic, and
one can easily understand the calls raised in some quarters of
the reform camp to abstain from voting.

It is worth noting, however, that the idea of abstention was
originally popularized in the Soeharto era when democracy was
non-existent and voting for either of the three officially
sanctioned parties was simply a ritual designed to lend
legitimacy to the strongman's autocratic rule. Polls were heavily
rigged to favor the then-ruling party, Golkar, and voters were
left with no choice but to toe the government line.

Things have substantially changed since then. It is not too
farfetched to suggest that under the currently prevailing
circumstances, abstaining could well upset the reform timetable,
rather than accelerate it. In spite of all its shortcomings, it
must be said that the General Elections Commission has so far
done a pretty good job of getting the process of democratization
moving. Our job as good citizens concerned about the future of
the nation should be to assist in expediting this process by
casting our votes responsibly and in full consciousness of the
consequences involved.