Voting vs consensus

To many, the events and proceedings that took place inside and outside Jakarta's City Hall on Jl. Kebon Sirih on Thursday may look somewhat complicated and confusing. To those, however, who have a knowledge of the procedures by which things have always been done in the corridors of power of the Indonesian capital, they may appear to be the long-awaited signal that, for the first time in decades, democracy is finally taking hold.

Governor Sutiyoso's accountability speech -- which is a speech which Indonesian provincial governors are required by law to make before the provincial legislature to account for all the actions taken and policies implemented during the past year -- was rejected by 68 votes to 16.

This fact, naturally, is unfortunate for the governor, but hardly astonishing, given the criticism that has been leveled at Sutiyoso in the past months. Besides, the vote of no-confidence doesn't mean that Sutiyoso is about to lose his job.

According to Law No.22/1999, the governor is given 30 days to provide more detailed explanations to the councillors' questions in a new, improved speech. And if the new speech is rejected, the City Council has to invite independent experts to form a second opinion in an open public hearing before sending a recommendation to the central government -- meaning the minister of home affairs -- for the governor's replacement.

So there is nothing very dramatic or noteworthy about the resolution. What was noteworthy, however, was that there was hardly any mention at all of musyawarah untuk mufakat -- deliberation toward consensus -- which was the way things were done in the past. For the first time for as long as Jakartans can remember, a decision was taken by voting.

Still, the final decision did not come easily. Having failed to reach an agreement on whether to accept or reject the speech, council leaders and the leaders of the 11 factions, after consultations, decided to hold a closed vote to settle their differences.

A heated debate immediately flared up after the decision was announced, with councillors divided between those who wanted the voting to be closed and those who preferred an open vote. Some of the councillors were hoping for a closed vote, arguing that this would protect the democratic rights of each councillor and avoid possible emotional reactions afterward. Others said an open vote was more democratic since it would clearly reflect each faction's stance in the matter.

With several councillors threatening to walk out, the council after a two-hour heated debate finally opted for an open vote. In the open vote, 68 members of the Jakarta City Council voted against endorsing the speech while 16 accepted it, with one councillor absent for unknown reasons.

In the meantime, outside the council's plenary hall some 250 noisy protesters representing four different groups were demanding that the council reject Sutiyoso's speech.

With all this going on, one may well ask what the commotion was all about. It seems that the central issue in question revolved around corruption, collusion and nepotism, popularly referred to in Indonesia by the acronym KKN, especially as regards the management of Bank DKI's nonperforming loans.

To the governor's credit, it must be said that he took it all calmly and without emotion. "I don't think they understand (the central bank's rules). We can't do anything but follow," Sutiyoso told reporters later, reminding his critics that his tenure was severely affected by the country's multidimensional crisis.

Whatever the case, Thursday's show of democracy in action, crude as it may seem, is a right step on the road toward democratic reform. What remains is to rein in emotions, both inside the council and outside, encourage fair play and engage in the decision-making process with cool heads. Jakarta, being Indonesia's trend-setting capital city, should be able to set a good example for the rest of the country.