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.