Maintain the Spirit of General Elections
Elections are only a fragile instrument of democracy and therefore should not be expected to be like a "magic box" for the realization of political democracy, let alone social democracy.
A mural about a general election initiated by the General Election Commission (KPU) on a wall fence on Jalan Kebon Jahe, Tangerang City, Banten, Wednesday (25/3/2020).
General elections are a common space for citizens to decide who will run the government. This is with the assumption that a qualified candidate is elected. Implicitly, elections are also a medium to get rid of those who are incompetent in the arena of power. In reality, elections are still a fragile instrument. A qualified candidate (person or political party) does not always win the elections. This is why some incumbents who are considered problematic have a great chance of being reelected.
In such a situation, the competition is choosing the lesser of two evils. Or, in a different situation, the elections are a space to contest "from and for" the political elite. The political elite here is understood not only by politicians but also holders of capital who are also directly involved in becoming politicians, even through their proxies. Accepting a situation like this of course has a price. The risk of decreasing the legitimacy of the elected government, waning confidence in the implementation of democracy or even the principles of democracy itself. This risk needs to be mitigated. Strengthening the elections is a necessity.
Also read: Democratic Deficit in Election Year
The strengthening of the elections is about conditioning that can promote an improvement in the electoral climate. The reference is the globally accepted standard norms: free and fair. Or, in Norris’ (2013) terms, election integrity. If formulated in different terms, elections must be designed in the spirit of presenting equality in terms of opportunities, possibilities, and also in utilizing various means. Elections must not only be free, but also presuppose that there is equality in using this freedom.
Barrier
Election strengthening is not an easy matter because there are conditions that have the potential to limit their optimal achievement. This condition, first, is at the conceptual level, namely defining qualified candidates. Qualified candidates are wanted with the assumption that they have competence, integrity and strong motivation to serve the public. When elected, these candidates are expected to work to improve the living standards of voters: safer, feeling to be citizens who are empowered and more prosperous.
The problem is, the interpretation of qualified candidates (as well as the desired performance) varies widely, influenced by various factors at once, such as ideological preferences, completeness of information to contextual factors and others. As reminded by Murray (2005), the criteria for qualified candidates is something that is still being contested. Political science theory, empirical studies of elections, political parties, and voters have different criteria regarding this. The latter two, according to Murray, tend to be biased because they use a lot of subjective indicators. In the context of the 2019 Simultaneous Elections, this quality criterion was translated into a pejorative nickname as represented by Amien Rais\' expression about "God\'s party" versus "Satan\'s party".
A qualified candidate (person or political party) does not always win the elections.
Prospective voters wearing plastic gloves, masks and face protection before voting during the simulation of voting in the 2020 simultaneous election at the KPU office, Jakarta, Wednesday (22/7/2020).
The next barrier is the campaign. Elections without campaigns are like a person wearing a shirt without wearing pants. Campaigns are an opportunity to obtain relevant information to help voters make choices (Bartels, 1996). The problem is, the intensity of the campaigns is crucial. Uninformed voters tend to choose candidates with high campaign intensity (Blais et al., 2009). Voters\' reception of information from the campaigns is also different. A study by McCain and Lawson (2005) shows that the flow of information from intense media campaigns to various segments of voters according to economic status does not change the information gap much and there is even a tendency to widen it.
With regard to this, Achen and Bartels (2016) reminded that voters often use their social identity and rationalize so that the policy issues they support match their partisan bias. Candidates also have the opportunity to manipulate messages about their policies and personalities to get elected. Therefore, campaigns are not a good indicator for assessing the quality of candidates (Markussen and Tyran 2017; Bowler et al, 2019). And, while campaigns are recognized as an effective means of influencing voters, some candidates see political bribery as much more effective (Cruzz et al, 2019).
Also read: The Single Candidate in Regional Elections
The third condition is related to the incoherence of the government system, the political party system, and the electoral system. This is also what happens in Indonesia. There is a mismatch between the presidential (but with parliamentary taste) system of government and extreme multiparty system and open proportional electoral system. From the political discourse, the main problem is the tug of war to strengthen the presidential system or to maintain a diverse political representation according to the diversity of Indonesian society. There are efforts to make a combination that can reduce the advantages of each system. However, in practice it even affirms its weaknesses.
This incoherence is related to the next barrier: political arrangement, including elections, not occurring in an empty space. The parties contest so that the existing system and regulations would benefit them in engaging in political competition. Not surprisingly, there are some elites who have the motivation to hinder and even hijack the strengthening of elections because they are considered to reduce or throw them from the arena of political power. Personally as the incumbent, the political elite also has the motivation to transfer the advantages of his political position to his family or relatives. The polemic regarding parliamentary and presidential thresholds and the size of electoral districts, for example, can be understood in this context. Even, some other elites see the moment of strengthening the election as an instrument to significantly change the electoral landscape. In the case of Indonesia, direct elections become indirect.
Also read: Covid-19 Pandemic and Lessons on Democracy
Motorists cross the General Election Commission (KPU) mural to campaign for anti-golput (abstainer) in the election on Jalan KH Hasyim Ashari, Tangerang, Banten, Sunday (7/6/2020).
Minimum agenda
This limiting condition serves as a reminder that strengthening elections has a scope that is not merely a matter of regulation and management of the elections. And, the process is nearly impossible to be completely done. Moreover, the Indonesian elections are in an "awkward" situation. Overall, there were no substantive election violations as happened in the New Order era, but it is also difficult to say that the implementation of elections had reached a sufficient point in terms of the integrity of the elections.
In accordance with this situation, the agenda for strengthening the elections is at least directed at building a more conducive situation for the realization of equality for each member of society to be elected and to elect. With this spirit, there are at least four minimum agendas that need to be promoted as well as being pushed to the legislators.
The most basic minimum agenda is encouraging internal democracy in political parties. This includes not only the leadership circulation process, but also the determination of legislative candidates, presidential/vice presidential candidates, candidates for regional heads and their deputies, preparation of political manifestos, and determining with whom to form a coalition. The important point is that this whole process presupposes the involvement of political party members directly or through a tiered mechanism.
Also read: Kinship (Politics) in Democracy
Internal democracy is only possible if it is mandatory. For example, it is stipulated as part of the requirements for political parties to participate in elections. The opportunity for party elites to circumvent this provision is open, but logically this would be detrimental to the party as a whole. Voters will be able to distinguish which party is more democratic and which is less democratic. The internal democratic process also has the potential to be hijacked by the owners of money or the "jumping bugs". Therefore, it is necessary to prepare an antidote procedure. In the context of nominating House of Representatives (DPR) or Regional Legislative Councils (DPRD) members, for example, the stipulation is that a person can only be nominated if he has been a party member for at least three years.
No less important is the fact that the contestation space needs to be maintained. At the presidential election level, the basic spirit of simultaneous elections is to strengthen the presidential system for the creation of an effective government. However, the requirements for nominating the presidential and vice presidential candidates must be lowered so that several pairs of candidates emerge so that voters have a choice, while at the same time avoiding involutive polarization. At the legislative level, the parliamentary threshold is maintained. This is to ensure that the party simplification process is not brutally forced into a two-party or two-and-a-half party system.
Also read: Challenges of the 2020 Regional Elections
Officers check the body temperature of prospective voters before entering the polls during the simulation of voting in the 2020 simultaneous election at the KPU office, Jakarta, Wednesday (22/7/2020). This simulation is carried out by implementing the prevention and control of Covid-19
The second minimum agenda is related to the attractiveness of public office. Although the political space needs to be kept open, its appeal needs to be made fair. Following Besley (2015), the attractiveness of public office is problematic when people are more motivated by the salary and “extra income” they can get than to serve the public. Normalization is carried out by making it difficult for elected politicians to sell influence, accommodating licensing and also conducting corruption, collusion and nepotism (KKN) practices.
This normalization, among other things, can be done by widening the transparency of the right to know, the mandatory for openness and as a process in formulating policies to also be in the sense of open government. The latter focuses not on accountability, but on encouraging public participation in operations and problem solving in running the government. This presupposes the existence of data sharing that is almost real-time, communication with the characteristics of many to many, the availability of data that can be extracted through a portal, the availability of a platform for collaboration, and for building citizen interaction with the government (Halberstam, 2015). With open government, the government will be more accountable. Especially if this is followed by institutional strengthening of state commission institutions, such as the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the Indonesian Ombudsman, the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU), the Consumer Dispute Resolution Agency, and also the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM).
Also read: Where is Indonesian Democracy Going?
The next minimum agenda is related to political contribution reform. In the case of campaign funds, the arrangement should be expanded further to include at least: (a) donations from individual owners, directors or company employees must be counted as part of corporate donations; (b) there is a prohibition on donations originating from corporations whose owners or directors are in legal proceedings and or are serving a sentence; (c) there is a limit on the allowable amount of campaign expenses; (d) a financial forensic audit of campaign finance reports.
At the political party level, at least there needs to be a limitation on party operational contributions from the general chairperson or their top management and a prohibition on corporations from making political contributions to more than one political party. This is accompanied by strengthening sanctions in the form of cancellation of participation and a ban on participating in elections in the next period (for individuals and parties) and heavier civil and criminal penalties (for donors).
Trial of the Electronic Recapitulation (Sirekap) application in the 2020 simultaneous elections at the KPU office, Jakarta, Tuesday (25/8/2020).
Elections are only a fragile instrument of democracy and therefore should not be expected to be like a "magic box" for the realization of political democracy, let alone social democracy.
The last minimum agenda is to increase equality in the use of facilities (for campaigning). The crucial point is managing mass media and social media. Print or electronic mass media is allowed to take sides, but must be subject to provisions for conveying disclosure information about partiality and accompanied by a limitation on the amount of content that may be published/broadcast. The use of non-political space (such as entertainment, infotainment, or religious events) must be prohibited. Public media, such as TVRI, RRI, and Antara news agency, must have an optimized role to increase the visibility to all contestants. There needs to be a special ad hoc body that involves senior independent journalists, academics, and election participants as supervisors.
For social media, the important point is to prevent this medium as a means of distributing hoaxes. Collaboration with application owners is needed so that hoax accounts and content can be eliminated immediately. However, a series of messages that uncover track records, evaluate program viability, question hidden agendas and political/business affiliations and the like should be allowed. The principle is: a negative campaign yes, no hoax! This provision must be followed at the level of the obligations of candidates to provide disclosure information about themselves, business affiliations and financial politics, as well as the political agenda if elected. This information must be available and open to access. It can also be added by the public after verification. Candidates who are not willing are automatically declared void.
Beyond these four minimum agendas, attention must be given to election management. The voter registration process, the recruitment of polling station (TPS) staff, the determination of electoral districts, the calculation process, and the announcement of results must involve the public with an open government approach. In this way, apart from being more efficient in terms of cost and time, election administration is also accountable and participatory.
/https%3A%2F%2Fkompas.id%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F01%2Fkompas_tark_22489074_121_1.jpeg){kind=logo}
Yunarto Wijaya
In short, strengthening elections must be accompanied by reforming sectors outside the elections themselves, especially the strengthening of good and clean governance as well as an easy and fair scope of business and civic education. Elections are only a fragile instrument of democracy and therefore should not be expected to be like a "magic box" for the realization of political democracy, let alone social democracy.
Yunarto Wijaya, Executive Director of Charta Politika Indonesia.
