Voting vs consensus

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.