Unfairness likely to cloud polls

Unfairness likely to cloud polls

By J. Sumardianta

YOGYAKARTA (JP): The 1999 general election, scheduled for next
June, may be regarded as the "soul" of the entire reform process.
Hopefully it will produce a legitimate and credible government.

It has become an important issue since some still question the
legitimacy and credibility of President B.J. Habibie's
government.

The coming general election has put that government at its
greatest political risk. If it fails, there may not be any reason
for Habibie to retain his position until the end of 1999.

Some fear that the next general election will be inconsistent
with the "reform spirit". Such fear stems from the political
bills currently being deliberated by the House of Representatives
(DPR).

Domination by government elements and the idea of allocating
55 DPR seats to the Armed Forces (ABRI) are two "fragile spots"
in the political bills.

The Golkar ruling party and ABRI still continue to represent
the status quo, while they are the major targets of the reform
movement. Excessive adherence of the bills to the power machine
inherited from the former regime is indeed incompatible with
common sense and a sense of justice.

General elections from 1971 through 1997 became national
agenda. The major problem was that the general elections were not
used as a means of rejuvenating the political system.

Instead, the election process was solely used as a means of
gaining political legitimacy. People's participation was only
limited to a few minutes of casting votes at the polling
stations. It was doubtless a part of the New Order government's
political grand design, in which people were only seen as vote
givers.

The general elections were a part of contrived political
schemes to maintain the status quo and manipulate the formal
rules for the interests of the regime. The administration was not
yet aware of the importance of transparent leadership
regeneration.

During the New Order era, general elections were simply used
as a means to extend and preserve the regime's legitimacy.
Manipulative practices were plotted at both the conceptual and
operational levels.

They were aimed at securing Golkar's targeted number of votes
and perpetuation of the political hegemony of the regime. The
general election principles of directness, openness, freedom and
confidentiality remained a meaningless slogan.

The New Order era's general elections involved three major
problems.

First, public participation at the structural level and in the
entire election process was lacking. The government dominated the
organizing committee and the whole election process -- voter
registration, nomination of representatives, campaigns, as well
as casting and counting of votes and monitoring. Members of the
Indonesian Election Committee, for instance, were all government
ministers.

In addition, the General Election Institute was chaired by the
Minister of Home Affairs and the Election Monitoring Committee
was headed by the Attorney General. At lower levels, election
committees were also dominated by government elements.

Second, general elections were always slanted with unfair
practices because the bureaucratic apparatus sided with Golkar.
It became distorted as government officials in the election
committee were also sitting on Golkar's board of directors.
Governors and regents, down to village heads, besides chairing
regional election committees, also chaired Golkar's advisory
boards in their own regions.

Third, vote counting did not involve any personnel from
political parties other than Golkar, which subsequently led to
unfair and manipulative practices. The government apparatus could
not conduct this justly and fairly in view of its commitment to
Golkar.

That was why general elections could not represent political
legitimacy, or transfer power in a peaceful way and promote
political education.

The New Order government's legitimacy obtained through general
elections was prone to be formal and procedural rather than moral
and essential. It was more pragmatic than ethical.

These typical attributes in turn caused political crisis,
removed from internal and external factors. Formal legitimacy of
the regime was always loaded with contradictions, one of them
being its claim to perpetuate political stability, which then
turned out to be the major root of the government's illegitimacy.

The founding fathers' obsession with a true parliament derived
from, elected by, and devoted to the people, and able to control
the government, did not turn into reality during the New Order
era.

The DPRs produced by the 1971 to 1997 general elections were
prone to represent the state's corporate interest more than that
of the people. Their representativeness was questionable because
almost 60 percent of the members came from the Greater Jakarta
area.

Turnover of government officials, which usually occurred after
general elections, could not be regarded as a process of change
in the elite as it was no different from changing "spare parts"
for the political machine, which contrived to preserve power.

The political elite were not responsive and sensitive to
socio-political dynamics. They continued to carry on with their
past ways of imposing their will in order to silence public
demands for democratization.

The absence of power limitation led to a simplified function
of general elections. Politicians at the infrastructure and
superstructure levels were lacking in self-confidence. They were
fearful they would be ousted from the political throne.

Overprotection of the DPR compound from outsiders during the
MPR's Special Session in November was an instance. That is why
this period after the New Order's fall is called the age of
extremes.

We must be on the alert for a coming general election that
might be carried out in the New Order style because unfair
practices still threaten through the political bills. Efforts to
deflect the coming general election into a means of perpetuating
the status quo still prevail.

According to the political bills, the new MPR will be composed
of 700 seats, including 150 seats divided between 81 regional
delegates and 69 group delegates. The problem is that the 81
delegates will not be appointed by the president but by members
of local councils (DPRD), which resulted from the 1997 Golkar-
dominated general election.

It is very likely that those seats will be controlled by those
who support the status quo. On the other hand, the 69 group
delegates will likely represent organizations such as the
Indonesian National Youth Committee (KNPI), the Indonesian
Journalists Association (PWI), the Indonesian Farmers Association
(HKTI) and the Federation of Indonesian Workers Associations
(FSPSI), which actually served as political machines of the New
Order government.

Thus, those who back the status quo will definitely earn 69
seats. As a result, 150 seats in the MPR will still be controlled
by Golkar. If these are combined with 55 seats for ABRI, the 205
seats are already at hand. To win the presidential election, they
will only need 351 out of the 700 seats in the MPR. That means
that Golkar will only need to gain 146 more seats in the DPR from
the 1999 general election.

Golkar will only need 30 percent of the collected votes to win
by practicing money politics. During the New Order era, money
proved itself to be a powerful tool to prop up power. Newly-
formed political parties are unlikely to win the coming general
election.

The solution is for pro-reform parties, such as the National
Mandate Party (PAN), Megawati Soekarnoputri's Indonesian
Democratic Party (PDI) and the People's Awakening Party (PKB),
all of which have a huge level of support, to form a coalition
party to intercept the return of Soehartoism.

The urgency of election reform does not lie in the system, be
it district or proportional representation. Rather it lies in the
committee structure and the election process. The organizing
committee and the monitoring committee for the 1999 general
election should be an institution independent from intervention
by the military, bureaucracy and Golkar.

It is high time ABRI started to consider withdrawing its
intervention from the DPR and DPRD because it has proved that it
blocks the democratization process.

The writer is a researcher at Lembaga Studi Sovranita
Indonesia and a teacher at the Kolese De Britto High School in
Yogyakarta.

Window: We must be on the alert for a coming general election
that might be carried out in the New Order style because unfair
practices still threaten through the political bills. Efforts to
deflect the coming general election into a means of perpetuating
the status quo still prevail.