Looking to Indonesia for electoral reforms
Ong Boon KeongPublished: Jul 23, 2009 3:11 PM | Updated: Jul 23, 2009 3:19 PM
The Manek Urai by-election was over on July 14th, a few days after Indonesians had their presidential election on the 8th.
The slight difference in dates however, did not tell you that there exists a vast difference how the democratic the elections were conducted.
I had the good fortune to visit Indonesia to observe the Indonesian presidential election under a regional election watchdog group, ANFREL(Asian Network for Free Elections).
The Manek Urai by-election was over on July 14th, a few days after Indonesians had their presidential election on the 8th.
The slight difference in dates however, did not tell you that there exists a vast difference how the democratic the elections were conducted.
I had the good fortune to visit Indonesia to observe the Indonesian presidential election under a regional election watchdog group, ANFREL(Asian Network for Free Elections).
I hope there are some things good to share in way elections are conducted in Malaysia and Indonesia.
Perhaps, for once, who knows, Malaysia will look south to improve its electoral procedures.
Malaysians can be excused for not knowing that serving politicians in Indonesia need to apply for leave to engage in political campaigns.
Politicians here in Malaysia never feel the need to do so.
Malaysians probably have forgotten that our first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman used to do that.
If the Indonesian candidates does apply for leave, there is an official election monitoring body, the BAWASLU, which will publicize the violation and summon the candidates to show cause why action should not be taken against them.
Such an official election monitoring body is an innovation by the post-Reformasi Indonesian government.
Malaysians would be surprised that the amount of money spent on the campaigns and sources collected by each candidate for the presidential campaign is published and put on record.
While there is no legal limit to the campaign funds, the transparency in the collection of the funds would win the trust from any electorate.
In Malaysia the official campaign fund limit is observed only in exception e.g. by Opposition or Independent candidates who can't collect higher than the allowed limit!
Next the BAWASLU would regularly update the public on another common type of violation i.e. the abuse of government facilities for campaign purposes.
Abusers can be hauled up
While such abuses are common in Indonesia and Malaysia like new road tarring which I observed extensively in Aceh, the abuses are monitored and the abusers could be called up by the official monitors to explain themselves.
The difference this might have made is: there is no equivalent of signboards declaring ‘Satu lagi project BN' in Indonesia.
The credit only goes implicitly and tacitly to the incumbent.
And Indonesians can hear their presidential candidates in live debates,5 in all: 3 among the presidential candidates and 2 among the vice-presidential candidates.
While the debates did not live up to the expectations of some students and civil society members, there is nothing to stop future candidates from using this platform to compete on more attractive and people-friendly policies.
While Indonesian elections used to take weeks for the official results to be announced, the advances in technology allow the election results this time round to be known just hours after the closing of the poll at 1.00pm across the archipelago.
Though the unofficial quick count results are actually based on random samplings, the closeness of the results among the 5 officially registered quick count bodies did lend support to the rigor of their methodologies.
While election for the geographical representation in Malaysia allow election results to be released within hours of the polls' closing, the slowness of the official counts so far still leaves a distinct bad taste.
While election campaigns are fierce in Indonesia, the beauty of the system is that they allow a 3-day cooling off period where no campaigning activities are allowed.
In fact the candidates or their campaign teams, need to use the 3 days to take down their campaign material or else risk being fined/penalized by the ever vigilant campaign monitoring body.
The campaigning on polling day by all sides in Malaysian, as shown in Manek Urai, only reflects how much the candidates do or don't trust the voters in making their own decisions.
On polling day itself the voters are required to dip their finger into indelible ink to stop multiple voting or impersonation.
While there are ways to improve the use of the ink e.g. marking the fingers with a pen, the trivial objections raised to stop the use of indelible ink in Malaysia were not raised by the Indonesian authorities in upholding the integrity of the election process there.
Very independent observers
Critics have claimed that the highest number of unregistered voters is 25 percent of the total eligible voters in Indonesia and amounts to 40million out of 170 million.
But in Malaysia, the number of unregistered voters is said to run up to 33 percent or 5 million compared to registered voters of about 11million
But the difference is that there are far fewer protests about unregistered voters on this side of the Straits.
How independent are the election administrators? In Indonesia the Election Commission (KPU) members are appointed by the Parliament with bi-partisan endorsement and a 5-year term.
Yet Indonesia needed to put another monitoring body ie the BAWASLU and their equivalent in districts/rural levels-called PANWASLU, to look over the shoulder of the election administrators.
How effective are these official monitors?
In Indonesians' the BAWASLU has shown its ability to bring the KPU to task various real or perceived lack of independence.
For example, the KPU has been criticized for printing voter education material which shows voters marking the incumbent candidates.
The KPU was forced to recall all the material at a huge cost.
The Indonesians are still pushing for the official election monitors to be given more autonomy to its commissioners' in their appointment and budget control.
In Malaysia, the Election Commission (EC) is just a department under the Prime Minister Department, with little autonomy in terms of the appointment of its commissioners and in terms of decisions on its budget.
The EC's budget is only 10 percent of that of the police during recent elections, showing clearly how the two compare in terms of clout and perceived value.
For various election violations e.g. abuse of government resources, personnel, vehicles, allocations etc by the incumbent candidates and parties, the EC can only give verbal advice.
Nothing can be or has been done to penalize these violators.
The EC is a toothless tiger while the Indonesian counterparts are all geared up to publicize the violations and ready to go after the violators.
Violators in Indonesia can be fined, disqualified for administrative violations or even prosecuted for criminal offences.
Disqualified candidates aplenty
For the record, there were numerous candidates who were disqualified because of election violations during the elections held in April.
In the Manek Urai by-election, the EC was reported to have expressed its utter disappointment that the police refused to enforce its ban of campaigning on polling day.
The contrasting stature of the election administrators in the two neighbouring countries cannot but produce a vast difference in the quality of election results.
In terms of freedom to campaign, the Indonesian election campaign period(June 1st-July 4th) is longer than one full month for the presidential elections,compared with the 10 days for Manek Urai(July 4th-13th).
None of the candidates in the Indonesian presidential elections complained about lack of freedom to campaign, but often we hear complaints of restrictions by the Federal opposition parties/candidates in Malaysia.
In the Manek Urai by-elections, component parties of the Pakatan Rakyat were not allowed to engage in campaigning in their party's name, a condition which does not apply to component parties of BN.
An interesting switch around in Indonesia is that police and military personnel are disallowed to vote because of their previous anti-democratic records.
Also prisoners and patients' rights to vote are respected but nn Malaysia, the practice is the opposite.
In Indonesia a statement by a candidate's spokesperson that a Bugis was not yet ready to be President attracted loud protests.
This is because Indonesians holds that all citizens are eligible to run for the presidency.
However in Malaysia, the party of the current Prime Minister, who is a Bugis by descent, would insist that the country's top executive post must be held by a member of the dominant ethnic group, even though there is no such legal requirement.
Under such conditions, it is no wonder that Indonesian elections often receive the thumb-up by local and international observers.
Malaysia's election missed such endorsement because the government never allowed any international observers for its elections since early 1980's.
The only local group allowed to observe the elections is kept at an arm's length to perform its telescopic role!
Indonesia has come a long way to become the foremost practitioner of electoral democracy in Asia within the last decade following its Reformasi movement in 1998.
This assessment is shared by ANFREL and other international election observers groups.
Malaysia could be the only country left behind in electoral performance if measures are not taken to rectify the matter.
ONG BOON KEONG is an international Election Observer to Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia
The slight difference in dates however, did not tell you that there exists a vast difference how the democratic the elections were conducted.
I had the good fortune to visit Indonesia to observe the Indonesian presidential election under a regional election watchdog group, ANFREL(Asian Network for Free Elections).
I hope there are some things good to share in way elections are conducted in Malaysia and Indonesia.Perhaps, for once, who knows, Malaysia will look south to improve its electoral procedures.
Malaysians can be excused for not knowing that serving politicians in Indonesia need to apply for leave to engage in political campaigns.
Politicians here in Malaysia never feel the need to do so.
Malaysians probably have forgotten that our first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman used to do that.
If the Indonesian candidates does apply for leave, there is an official election monitoring body, the BAWASLU, which will publicize the violation and summon the candidates to show cause why action should not be taken against them.
Such an official election monitoring body is an innovation by the post-Reformasi Indonesian government.
Malaysians would be surprised that the amount of money spent on the campaigns and sources collected by each candidate for the presidential campaign is published and put on record.
While there is no legal limit to the campaign funds, the transparency in the collection of the funds would win the trust from any electorate.
In Malaysia the official campaign fund limit is observed only in exception e.g. by Opposition or Independent candidates who can't collect higher than the allowed limit!
Next the BAWASLU would regularly update the public on another common type of violation i.e. the abuse of government facilities for campaign purposes.
Abusers can be hauled up
While such abuses are common in Indonesia and Malaysia like new road tarring which I observed extensively in Aceh, the abuses are monitored and the abusers could be called up by the official monitors to explain themselves.
The difference this might have made is: there is no equivalent of signboards declaring ‘Satu lagi project BN' in Indonesia.
The credit only goes implicitly and tacitly to the incumbent.
And Indonesians can hear their presidential candidates in live debates,5 in all: 3 among the presidential candidates and 2 among the vice-presidential candidates.
While the debates did not live up to the expectations of some students and civil society members, there is nothing to stop future candidates from using this platform to compete on more attractive and people-friendly policies. While Indonesian elections used to take weeks for the official results to be announced, the advances in technology allow the election results this time round to be known just hours after the closing of the poll at 1.00pm across the archipelago.
Though the unofficial quick count results are actually based on random samplings, the closeness of the results among the 5 officially registered quick count bodies did lend support to the rigor of their methodologies.
While election for the geographical representation in Malaysia allow election results to be released within hours of the polls' closing, the slowness of the official counts so far still leaves a distinct bad taste.
While election campaigns are fierce in Indonesia, the beauty of the system is that they allow a 3-day cooling off period where no campaigning activities are allowed.
In fact the candidates or their campaign teams, need to use the 3 days to take down their campaign material or else risk being fined/penalized by the ever vigilant campaign monitoring body.
The campaigning on polling day by all sides in Malaysian, as shown in Manek Urai, only reflects how much the candidates do or don't trust the voters in making their own decisions.
On polling day itself the voters are required to dip their finger into indelible ink to stop multiple voting or impersonation.
While there are ways to improve the use of the ink e.g. marking the fingers with a pen, the trivial objections raised to stop the use of indelible ink in Malaysia were not raised by the Indonesian authorities in upholding the integrity of the election process there.
Very independent observers
Critics have claimed that the highest number of unregistered voters is 25 percent of the total eligible voters in Indonesia and amounts to 40million out of 170 million.
But in Malaysia, the number of unregistered voters is said to run up to 33 percent or 5 million compared to registered voters of about 11million
But the difference is that there are far fewer protests about unregistered voters on this side of the Straits.
How independent are the election administrators? In Indonesia the Election Commission (KPU) members are appointed by the Parliament with bi-partisan endorsement and a 5-year term.
Yet Indonesia needed to put another monitoring body ie the BAWASLU and their equivalent in districts/rural levels-called PANWASLU, to look over the shoulder of the election administrators. How effective are these official monitors?
In Indonesians' the BAWASLU has shown its ability to bring the KPU to task various real or perceived lack of independence.
For example, the KPU has been criticized for printing voter education material which shows voters marking the incumbent candidates.
The KPU was forced to recall all the material at a huge cost.
The Indonesians are still pushing for the official election monitors to be given more autonomy to its commissioners' in their appointment and budget control.
In Malaysia, the Election Commission (EC) is just a department under the Prime Minister Department, with little autonomy in terms of the appointment of its commissioners and in terms of decisions on its budget.
The EC's budget is only 10 percent of that of the police during recent elections, showing clearly how the two compare in terms of clout and perceived value.
For various election violations e.g. abuse of government resources, personnel, vehicles, allocations etc by the incumbent candidates and parties, the EC can only give verbal advice.
Nothing can be or has been done to penalize these violators.
The EC is a toothless tiger while the Indonesian counterparts are all geared up to publicize the violations and ready to go after the violators.
Violators in Indonesia can be fined, disqualified for administrative violations or even prosecuted for criminal offences.
Disqualified candidates aplenty
For the record, there were numerous candidates who were disqualified because of election violations during the elections held in April.
In the Manek Urai by-election, the EC was reported to have expressed its utter disappointment that the police refused to enforce its ban of campaigning on polling day.
The contrasting stature of the election administrators in the two neighbouring countries cannot but produce a vast difference in the quality of election results.
In terms of freedom to campaign, the Indonesian election campaign period(June 1st-July 4th) is longer than one full month for the presidential elections,compared with the 10 days for Manek Urai(July 4th-13th).
None of the candidates in the Indonesian presidential elections complained about lack of freedom to campaign, but often we hear complaints of restrictions by the Federal opposition parties/candidates in Malaysia. In the Manek Urai by-elections, component parties of the Pakatan Rakyat were not allowed to engage in campaigning in their party's name, a condition which does not apply to component parties of BN.
An interesting switch around in Indonesia is that police and military personnel are disallowed to vote because of their previous anti-democratic records.
Also prisoners and patients' rights to vote are respected but nn Malaysia, the practice is the opposite.
In Indonesia a statement by a candidate's spokesperson that a Bugis was not yet ready to be President attracted loud protests.
This is because Indonesians holds that all citizens are eligible to run for the presidency.
However in Malaysia, the party of the current Prime Minister, who is a Bugis by descent, would insist that the country's top executive post must be held by a member of the dominant ethnic group, even though there is no such legal requirement.
Under such conditions, it is no wonder that Indonesian elections often receive the thumb-up by local and international observers.
Malaysia's election missed such endorsement because the government never allowed any international observers for its elections since early 1980's.
The only local group allowed to observe the elections is kept at an arm's length to perform its telescopic role!
Indonesia has come a long way to become the foremost practitioner of electoral democracy in Asia within the last decade following its Reformasi movement in 1998.
This assessment is shared by ANFREL and other international election observers groups.
Malaysia could be the only country left behind in electoral performance if measures are not taken to rectify the matter.
ONG BOON KEONG is an international Election Observer to Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia
View Comments0