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

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.