|
|
Pemilu Presiden, Legislatif, Pilkada
Elections: An inexpensive alternative
2003-10-12
At a recent Idul Fitri gathering a friend declared that ""elections are really expensive. Is it worth
it?""
I suddenly recalled the days before we could use elections to change a government. In 1998 the
President of the day was dutifully re-elected by every single participating member of the
National Assembly (MPR). No questions, no dissent, not even an expressions of concern.
The uncompetitive and tediously stage crafted elections from 1971 to 1997 produced a political
leadership that could quarantine itself from the real world in which the rest of Indonesia lived.
Outside this quarantine zone inflation was shooting towards 100%, the economy was collapsing
15%, unemployment and poverty were skyrocketing as factory, shop and other business'
collapsed under 50% interest rates and no demand. Shops were running short of supplies as
hoarding took place (even before the looting).
The problem was that to change leaders, people had to shake the country to its foundations,
destroy the economy and threaten the social and political fabric of the nation. Even in crude
money terms, the cost of the competitive 1999 elections was actually less than the loss in value
of just one mid-sized company on the Jakarta stockmarket.
What an absurdly extravagant, expensive and painful way to change a government! The costs of
changing the government back in the mid-1960s was arguably even more expensive, certainly in
terms of the loss of life.
Frankly an election that used gold plated ballot papers would still be far cheaper than the costs of
having to destroy the economy and leave untold numbers of citizens dead and traumatised if all
that was desired was to change the government
As a result I think it fair to say that competitive, (free and fair), elections is a far cheaper way to
say to a leader or other politicians ""it's time to enjoy your retirement"" than to resort to other
options this country has been forced to use far too frequently throughout history.
One question often asked cynically, particularly from the urban intellectuals, is ""will these
elections produce change?"" Setting aside the issue of instant gratification, that is take elections
mix in free press, then presto instant just and prosperous democracy, this question can only be
answered by considering a few other questions.
The most basic question to be considered is whether 140 million voters want change or not? For
example will the voters be happy to take their Rp 50,000 (or whatever the going rate next year
will be) before polls open and vote for the party that provided such ""generosity""? How many
voters recognise that elections are not festivals of democracy and that the impact of who they
vote for can have a 5 year impact on their lives? Additionally will people who have been thrown
out of their make shift houses as part of the Governor's cleansing of Jakarta vote for the parties
that re-elected this Governor? Will the coffee shop radicals who enjoy deriding the existing and
potential leaders and political parties offer themselves for public office?
Unfortunately democracy is not such an easy option. It is also not the ""soft option"" that the
militarist mind-set would have you believe. Democracy is the hard option for citizens because it
makes you responsible. It is not only leaders who are responsible and accountable. As a voter
you are responsible directly for who is or is not elected. It is simply not good enough to prattle
on about ""primordialism"", poverty or low levels of education etc in order to evade
responsibility and justify results.
One way to evade from responsibility is to boycott the vote. The Golput (vote boycott)
phenomena made great sense in an era when politics was restricted and government controlled.
Indeed it was a powerful form of subversion. However in this era it is merely self-defeating. Yes
voters have the right not to vote. But the catch is you can't actually opt out. This is because not
voting is also a vote. In not voting, your ""vote"" will actually strengthen the party or candidate
you most dislike.
It is very simple. There are two candidates. You don't like either. Of course there is one you
dislike slightly more than the other. By not voting you actually provide support to the other, as
you would have voted for the first one had you voted.
Just ask the French Socialists. In the last elections they decided to stay at home for the first round
of the Presidential Election. The candidate to benefit from this was the extreme right winger,
who came in second and was able to participate in the final round. The ultimate beneficiary was
the moderate right winger as the Socialists were forced to vote for him to stop the extreme right
winger from being elected.
The bottom line of democracy is that you can't escape responsibility, unless of course you escape
democracy. Oh yes the good ol' days, when the Great Leader made all the decisions and we
simply kept our mouth's shut. The good ol' days of predictable tranquility when a thick blanket of
political censorship covered the ocean of Indonesia -- blissful and noble ignorance. The good ol'
days when we knew the system was corrupt and that the official government structures bore
scant resemblance to the real structures of power. In seeking refuge in nostalgia do recall that it
took at least 10 years to establish the good ol' days system and even then it was only 2 oil booms
that lubricated the way for the system to survive as long as it did.
In this regard the emergence of Indonesia's own version of SARS (Sindrom Aku Rindu Soeharto
-- the I Miss Soeharto Syndrome) is a call to go Back to the Future. Sadly this is only possible in
movies. Even were the great Soeharto back as President would the New Order be back
overseeing 7% growth a year, investment flooding in and freedom from freedom back in vogue?
Of course not. Immunity to SARS begins with accepting that the future of the country is in your
hands, not some messianic Great Leader.
The answer to the question of whether the elections will produce change is ""does the electorate
want change?"" If they don't then the elections will not, and should not, produce change. After
all free and fair elections reflect the will of the electorate. Alternatively if they do vote for
change, then yes the elections may well produce change.
{The Jakarta Post decided at it end of 2003 edition to ask a few people to put pen to paper or
fingers to key pad and come up with some views on issues of importance for 2004. I was asked to
produce 2 articles, published on 30 December 2003. This article looked at the seemingly
permanent debate about eth “costs of elections” while the second article looked at the issue
looked at the dynamics of the new election system to be applied in 2004.}
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
