Voting is a `buying a cat in a sack' affair

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

When ballots are cast in the general election across Indonesia today (Monday, April 5), it is reasonable to say that most voters will not know why they are selecting a particular party or certain candidates. As the Indonesian saying goes, voting is like "buying a cat in a sack" -- you don't know what you are getting until after the transaction has been made. Similarly, voters are unable to discern or judge exactly what the election of the figure of their choice would entail.

In all likelihood, they will make the wrong choice. Sad but true. In this election, widely billed as the second free and fair election for the nation (after the first in 1999), voters will still be making uninformed choices.

Most have no idea what each of the 24 political parties represents, about their respective platforms, and even less about the candidates who will represent them in the House of Representatives (DPR), Provincial Legislative Council (DPRD I), Regional Legislative Council (DPRD II), and the new Regional Representatives Council (DPD).

Yet, we ask a lot of today's voters -- that they should make the crucial decision on whom will represent them in these various political institutions. Today, they have to choose which party and which candidates will represent them in the DPR, the DPRD I and DPRD II, and which four candidates will be sent to Jakarta to sit on the DPD.

The 22 days allotted to parties and candidates for campaigning is simply not enough for voters to acquaint themselves with the candidates. And it is definitely an insufficient period for the parties and candidates to sell their ideas.

The time frame imposed on the campaign period is the legacy of Soeharto's regime, when general elections were held merely to legitimize his power and that of Golkar's political machinery. Elections were then aptly called "fiestas of democracy", in which the emphasis was always more on the "fiesta" and not at all on "democracy".

They were full of fanfare (hence the convoys and motorcades) and -- as was experienced during the six pseudo-elections held during the Soeharto regime between 1971 and 1997 -- prone to outbreaks of violence.

There was nothing democratic about the substance of these elections as the number of parties was limited to three, and these were all controlled by the government. For all we know, the campaign period could have been reduced to one week, or even one day, without impacting on the outcome of the elections: Landslide victories for Golkar.

Limiting the campaign period to one week or one day would have spared the nation the violent outbreaks. Although, violence was part and parcel of Soeharto's regime. This year's general election is governed by a completely new regime of laws.

We have 24 political parties (down from 48 in 1999), and people will be voting in their respective electoral districts. The laws also ban the use of motorcades or convoys and open-field rallies in the campaign, although going by the events of these past three weeks, they were not consistently banned. Instead, the laws encouraged parties and candidates to take their campaigns to television screens (through advertisements) and to public debates.

And the laws also restrict the campaign period to a mere 22 days, followed by a three-day cooling-off period before April 5. This is where the laws appear to be inconsistent with the democratic spirit of elections. If the intention of democratic elections is to give the voters a choice of who will represent them in various political institutions, then they should also be given the chance to get to know the parties and the candidates thoroughly. Making an informed choice is an essential part of electoral democracy. Limiting the campaign period deprives voters of adequate information.

The drafters of the electoral laws -- perhaps remembering elections during Soeharto's rule -- feared violent outbreaks among party supporters. However, by banning motorcades, convoys and open-field rallies, the likelihood of violence was minimized. All that was further needed was to ensure compliance (and hence order, managed by law enforcement agencies). A longer campaign period could have been allowed without risking the possibility of violent outbreaks.

What Indonesia needs, certainly in the 2009 elections, is to allow for a longer campaign period, perhaps even unlimited, so that there is a chance for greater connection or bonding between voters, candidates and parties. The earlier the candidates launch their campaigns, the better it is for democracy. Voters need to know their candidates well -- their backgrounds, their track records, their platforms and other details. Voters even need to know what these candidates promise to do -- and hold them constantly accountable to these promises once they are in office.

The current time restriction on campaigning is an advantage for the old and established parties, including Golkar Party, the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) and the United Development Party (PPP) -- all remnants from Soeharto's electoral system. With most voters still in the dark over their options -- and largely unaware of the qualities of the newer political parties, their platforms and most of their candidates -- it would not be surprising if they simply voted for those whom they were familiar with. And as Shakespeare would have it, familiarity often breeds contempt. In our case, the contempt is for democracy.

The writer is currently studying at Harvard University with fellowships from the Nieman Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Asia Foundation.