Election news digest 8, 1 - 13 February 2009

Contents:

Quota for women necessary [1 February]
Critics of the quota system for women say the law is not strong enough as it does not guarantee women seats in parliament.  But there is concern that people will continue talking about a quota system while forgetting its purpose.  The quota for women is not a goal, but a first step to boost women's role in policy-making bodies so that increased attention is given to gender-based problems such as domestic violence, discrimination in the work place, poor protection of women migrant workers, the high maternal mortality rate, and gender-biased public policies. [full story…]

Also: Women On The Front Row [8 February] [full story…]

You are measured by whether your presence has an effect [8 February] [full story…]

Of Hearts and Incapable Minds [10 February] [full story…]

Marwah Daud Ibrahim: Tipping the balance of power [11 February] [full story…]

Christians Fear Of Being Marginalized Ahead Of Polls [2 February]
Christians in the country are concerned Muslim parties could ratchet up their political leverage by winning more votes in the upcoming legislative elections, and continue to pin their hopes on nationalist parties. There is concern that Islamic-based parties could push Indonesia toward a nationwide implementation of Islamic law if they win the April polls. [full story…]

Ex-Generals Rebuke SBY for Remark [3 February]
President Yudhoyono has been warned that a recent allegation made by him of bias within the army’s elite could drive the army back into politics.  Last week, the President said there was a movement inside the Army (TNI) to vote against a presidential candidate whose name began with "S".  Responding to the allegation, former Army chief of staff Gen. (ret) Tyasno Sudarto drew attention to concerns among retired officers that allowing local parties in Aceh could lead to the disintegration of Indonesia [full story…]

Also: Military Disloyalty, Jakarta Post editorial [4 February] [full story…]

TNI Chief Plays Coy as ‘S’ Scandal Rattles Military [5 February] [full story…]

Tempo: War of Whispers [10 February] [full story…]

Tempo editorial: After the ABS Rumor [10 February] [full story…]

Indonesia’s Silent Voters Being Heard [3 February]
The so-called golput, registered voters who choose for various reasons to either stay away from the polls or cast blank ballots, could play a significant role in the forthcoming elections, say political analysts.  Golput accounted for around 25% of the electorate at the 2004 legislative polls.  [full story…]

After the Death Of a Legislator [9 February]
The violent death of the speaker of North Sumatra's legislative council at the hands of brutal protesters last week may present antidemocratic forces with a pretext to question the viability
of democracy in Indonesia.  However, democracy has found a niche in Indonesian political life, and lest anyone nurture doubt about it, they should refer to Time magazine's recent five-page report on democracy in Asia. Indonesia stood out in the region for having, warts and all, a thriving democracy. [full story…]

'Many Mistakes' On Final Ballots [9 February]
The General Elections Commission began printing ballot papers late on Sunday for the April 9 legislative elections, ignoring complaints from political parties and the country's electoral
supervisory body that the ballots contained serious errors which could undermine the fairness of the polls. [full story…]

Internal Rift Threatening Golkar Party [11 February]
Debate about the need for the Golkar Party to name a presidential candidate before the April legislative elections has sharpened an already damaging internal rift within the 2004 poll-winning party, according to analysts. [full story…]

Also: Internal conflict takes shape ahead of national meeting [13 February] [full story…]

Money No Match for Political Message [11 February]
It is a commonly held belief that money is the most important factor in winning elections. That he or she with the most money will always win. That a candidate with deep pockets can cynically buy the affections of voters and triumph. It is a myth that persists in Indonesia and around the world. The truth is much more complicated and that voters are smarter than that. [full story…]

The State of Our Democracy: Disheartening and Alarming [13 February]
It has been a little over 10 years since we chose to adopt a democratic system of government. This has given us remarkably positive international exposure. Indonesia is now highly regarded as the third largest democratic country after India and the United States. It is also applauded as a current example of how Islam and democracy can work and relate quite amicably. Substantively, and especially beyond partisan politics, however, there have been far fewer success stories to tell, the conspicuous evidence of which has been our inability to make “all good things go together” in our democracy: the realization of political stability on the one hand and economic prosperity on the other.  Quite understandably, this is what has made many Indonesians seemingly apprehensive of democracy. There are still too many doubters of democracy. And recent developments have made even more question whether this nation sincerely and truly believes in the merit and efficacy of democracy. Bachtiar Effendy, professor of political sciences. [full story…]

Top

---

Quota For Women Necessary

The Jakarta Post
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Indraswari, Bandung

Whether a quota system to increase the number of women in parliament is needed is always a hotly debated subject.

The government has made accommodations for a quota system, as stipulated in Law 10/2008 on the general elections. Article 53 states "Lists of provisional legislative candidates submitted by a political party must ensure that 30 percent of the nominees are women".

Article 55 states, "The list must ensure that of every three legislative candidates, at least one of them is a female candidate".

Critics say the law is not strong enough to support a quota system as it does not guarantee women seats in parliament.

It is about securing women's candidacy only. But even the latter may not work properly as there is no sanction on those who do not apply the 30 percent quota.

The chances that female candidates will secure seats in the legislative elections in April is likely to shrink further since the Constitutional Court annulled Article 214 of Law 10/2008 which stipulated parties could grant seats earned to candidates based on their positions on the parties' ballot.

The court ruling now requires political parties to assign legislative seats to candidates who win the most votes. They argue that allocating women specific seats is undemocratic. Women activists have come out against the ruling which they say contravenes the affirmative action to allocate 30 percent of the
legislative seats for women.

The controversy continues with the General Elections Commission (KPU) saying that despite the court's ruling, female legislative candidates will still be "facilitated" to win seats in parliament.

There is a notion of separating the election of female and male legislative candidates. Others propose a system which requires parties that win three seats in an election district to award at least one seat to a female candidate.

The Commission goes even further. Andi Nurpati, a Commission member, has said that they have already drafted a Commission regulation to award legislative seats to women if the government fails to issue the government regulation in-lieu-of-law (perpu) on the matter.

The controversy is likely to continue and invites endless pros and cons. What worries us is that people will continue talking about a quota system while forgetting its purpose.

The quota for women is not a goal, but a first step to boost women's role in policy-making bodies so that women's voices will be heard and their interests will be accommodated.

Lack of women in policy-making bodies leads to poor attention to gender-based problems such as domestic violence, discrimination in the work place, poor protection of women migrant workers, the high maternal mortality rate, and gender-biased public policies, to name a few. More than 80 percent of victims of domestic
violence are women. In the work place, women are paid 70 percent of men's wages for doing jobs similar to those men do.

Violation of the rights of women migrant workers remain unsolved as well as the high maternal mortality rate of 307 per 100,000 live births, the highest in Southeast Asia. In the era of regional autonomy, the lack of female policy makers leads to gender-biased regional bylaws such as those which restrict women's dress code and mobility.

These problems should not be seen as women's problems only as they also affect other segments of society.

A woman who is a victim of domestic violence will not be able to be a good mother for her children. A woman who dies in childbirth will leave her baby (and her other children) motherless. A World Bank study indicates that gender inequality decreases society's welfare and becomes a hindrance for development.

Therefore a quota for women is still needed. As an affirmative action it should be implemented only temporarily considering the current social, economic and political culture is not yet supportive for women to actively engage in politics.

Those who regard a quota for women as undemocratic should remember women constitute more than half the population but are poorly represented in policy-making bodies. The proportion of female legislators at the House of Representative has never exceeded 13 percent.

Democratically speaking, women need to be represented directly and proportionately.

The writer is a lecturer at the Department of Public Administration, School of Social and Political Science,
Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung.

Top

Women On The Front Row

The Jakarta Post
Sunday, February 8, 2009

The days until the General Elections on April 9 are numbered. While on the streets there posters of female candidates have begun to appear, debate continues as to whether to assist them by strictly enforcing the 30 percent quota for females or to let majority rule and the candidate with the most votes win, regardless of gender. To probe these questions, The Jakarta Post's Tifa Asrianti , Mariani Dewi and Emmy Fitri looked
further into the representation of women in the House of Representatives. Despite relevant education and experience, women still struggle for recognition of their ability to serve in public office. Their ability to serve not just other women, but the general public is often called into question.

"There are a lot of questions as to women's capability in legislative, administrative and even judicial bodies. The public is still learning about female leadership because it is still unusual," Masruchah, secretary-general of the Indonesian Women's Coalition, said. "Largely, they [men] view women as only able to serve in a domestic role."

The coalition of groups advocates the representation of women in politics and has made stronger gains over the past 10 years.

"We talked about a female president in 1999 but the rejection was really strong. Religious leaders [Ulema] were intervening and said it was against the religion [Islam],"

"But in the end when Gus Dur [former president Abdurrahaman Wahid] stepped down and was replaced by Megawati [Sukarnoputri], suddenly Islamic parties threw in their support," Masruchah said.

Under Megawati's administration however, the issuing of contentious ordinances by regional administrations, perceived as discriminating against women, thrived. Many however, saw this as an effect of rising [Islamic] fundamentalism and the over-eager celebration of regional administrative policies.

Secretary-general of the National Commission for Children's Protection, Arits Merdeka Sirait, said he has lot hope that female legislators - both in this period and before – will reflect a gender-sensitive perspective in their work. Arist is a children's advocate but said he has thus far never found legislators convincingly voice concerns over children's issues. "We expect women to be more sensitive than male legislators."

"I have had an upsetting experience with female legislators. Once in a hearing we presented our case but none of them even asked question. There were several female legislators in the hearing but they were not moved," he said.

Meanwhile Chairwoman of the National Commission on Violence against Women Kamala Chandrakirana says female legislators have shown inconsistency in acting on women's issues.

"They [female legislators] managed to pass a breakthrough trafficking law but the same parliament members also endorsed the anti-pornography law. Kamala said she suspects that this happens because female legislators have not been standing on their own two feet; "They simply cannot work by themselves."

Activist Yeni Rosa Damayanti shares Kamala's concerns. She believes that in the House, the factional policies play a major role in the decision-making procedure. The party line rules both male and female legislators, she said.

Yeni cited the example of Angelina Sondakh, a legislator from the Democratic Party. She strongly opposed the anti-pornography law, but, since the party decided to support the law, she was powerless to stop its passage. Therefore, she added, Indonesia needs not only legislators who are vocal, but who fight the factions for what they believe is right.

"This is the major hurdle. Until now, we haven't seen the female role in determining the factional policy. In my opinion, the 30 percent quota should be applied in the House and the organizational structure of the party, because the parties determine the policy of the factions," she said.

"Another hurdle is that many of the female legislators do not have a background in activism. As a result, they can not bring in and fight for women's issues. Also, many female legislators have no knowledge about women issues."

For the upcoming elections, however, there are several women rights activists who have taken the opportunity to run in this year's race; Ratna Batara Murti is one of them. Ratna, a candidate from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), said that she decided to enter the politics to fight
for the rights of women in the political party.

Ratna entered the party in 2008, after she held a seminar about the representation of women in the legislative. Former director of the Indonesian Women's Association for Justice (LBH APIK) said that she chose the PDIP because the party was serious about wome's issues. She cited that PDIP was behind UU PKDRT and rejected the Antipornography Law. The party's socialist economic platform and dedication to pluralism helped, she added.

"I represent the East Java 7 electoral district. It is one of the PDIP's basis areas, but the recent decision by the Constitutional Court to eliminate the party list preferences makes it more difficult for women. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's youngest son is also running in the area, so I face stiff competition," she said.

"I face problems not only from outside the party, but also have from within it. There are incumbent candidates, which make it hard for newcomers like me to get elected. I'm a newbie, not part of the cadre, so it is difficult to use the party's political machine to my advatage."

To fight her way into the parliament, Ratna cooperates with other candidates and has created a women's movement in the region because East Java lacks women's right NGO like the LBH or the APIK.

It is politics within politics as Eva Kusuma Sundari, as a legislator from PDI-P who also was engaged in activism before entering party politics, put it. Now inside the system, she is gaining momentum by speaking out louder than her male colleagues.

Meanwhile, political analyst Bvitri Susanti of the Study Center on Indonesian Law and Policy said that, in general, conditions for women seeking to enter parliament has improved. She said female legislators in the 2004-2009 period were better both in quantity and quality than at previous times.

"On quality, I see that female legislators in this period are more open and they have expanded their network with activists outside the parliament. That's why we have had better coordination."

However, she expects that for the upcoming term, female legislators will have more "gender sensitivity" and realize that their role as female legislators should enable them to see all regulation from a gendered perspective.

"Policies on health, labor, investment and agriculture should be seen from a gendered perspective. Therefore, they should share and expand network with groups outside the parliament. I also expect them to hold dialogs with their constituents at the grass roots level, to be cleaner politicians and be more obedient and seldom absent."

There are plenty of examples of the small impact women have made in the parliament but even still, women must be physically present in parliament to make a difference.

Masruchah said many female legislative candidates have impulsively joined political parties based on invitation and not on ideals or ideology. But she sees many of them as working hard to raise the bar - including by coordinating with activists and non-governmental organizations.

"All the women [in the parliament] want to change," she said.

Top

Eva K. Sundari: `You are measured by whether your presence has an effect'

The Jakarta Post
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Mariani Dewi

The 61 female legislators are a small minority among the 550 members of the House of Representatives (DPR). According to Eva Kusuma Sundari, a female legislator, those who understand and work on women's issues are even scarcer.

At the patriarchic House, woman legislators must be twice as smart and work twice as hard to be acknowledged. Currently three months pregnant, she is prepared to put a cradle in her office in order to keep working.

Eva spoke to The Jakarta Post about the challenges women legislators face, the issues they are fighting for and why it's good to have them there. Following is an excerpt from the interview:

Are there certain priorities that you, as a female legislator, have but male legislators do not pay attention to?

Eventually I understood that a female perspective hardly exists in the decision making process, unless we [the female legislators] actively make noise to remindthe rest.

It made me often think: "Yes, there are many woman legislative candidates - this is the disease in our democracy - but it is unclear what or who they are representing." I made it clear from the start I represented women's interests.

My experience on the budgeting committee was an example. I wondered why there was no allocation for [human] trafficking cases, while annually we saw 800,000 trafficking victims.

I learned that trafficking cases always failed to pass the prosecutor's office because the prosecutors did not know much about it. I managed to get Rp 30 billion (US$2.56 million) for the prosecutor's office.

So you think women do not always represent women's interests?

Yes. We have to differentiate the term representation, between physical representation and a concern or interest in representing their interests. Today, physical representation is still dominant.

I know that the presence of women in the House is important. But that number itself is not enough when the concerns and the portfolios of the female politicians have not shown their concern for women.

Why is there this problem?

I think it is about their background. For those who worked with NGOs before, they have a clear stance. But for those who come from the establishment, such as wives of officials, it is hard to expect such a stance.

But it is still easier to convince them to let woman sit on the General Elections Commission [KPU] than to convince men. That's where our presence can make a difference, but still there must be someone who makes the push.

Does a female legislator have the freedom to voice her opinion?

You must be twice as smart and work harder. Only then will people acknowledge you and listen to you. It depends on your capacity. If you are average, or lazy, no one will listen.

It is based on capability. I can steal the attention. For example, when there is an issue that is not getting attention, I can hold a press conference. We need a strategy, we need capability, we need to be able to communicate and we need to map the influential actors.

Usually I work with Nursyahbani Katjasungkana [of the National Awakening Party/PKB] and other women from other parties. They might grumble about their party's position. They ask me to speak up first, before the patriarchic men speak and hold them ransom. For female politicians, it is politics inside politics. Women
can work across party lines for some issues.

But funny things do happen - like a legislator who claimed the credit for championing a law, although she was not involved in its negotiations.

Is it possible to go against your own party's position?

Well, you need to use the strategy of "speaking first". You speak out as early as possible to the media so others feel uneasy to say otherwise. For example, Megawati Soekarnoputri [chairman of the Indonesian Democracy Partyof Struggle, PDI-P] once did not agree with us, but I was the spokeswoman so I said our party had changed our stand and we now agreed with the policy. Many people went pale. I got a text message that said "Damn you."

Yet it was impossible for the party to have two positions, so everyone eventually agreed. I had my own supporters who told me to go ahead. I was quite anxious the week after to see if I would be cautioned or punished [by my party] but I was not. There was a risk to it because it was a big issue.

You have to play politics in the political scene. If you do nothing, why are you there holding the seat? In politics, you are measured by whether your presence has an effect.

What about the concern that many female candidates are inexperienced and may make a mess?

The issue of capacity is not only for women. Many men also suddenly become legislators and I am not sure about their capability. There must be a learning process. But why do females have to be smart to enter [the House] while it is okay for men to be stupid [with the argument] that they can learn later.

I think background and experience determine whether a member can quickly function or not. To discuss the issue of pornography, if you do not understand the issue of trafficking, children's rights and women's rights, it will be a wasteful exercise. Everything is about morality without seeing the reality. The law does not answer the heart of the matter.

Top

Of Hearts and Incapable Minds

Tempo Magazine No. 24/IX
February 10-16, 2009
Kate Lamb

National

Indonesians can boast they have had a woman in the top job, but activists say that female representation in the post-election cabinet will be lower than that of Rwanda.

DUE to affirmative action policies, Rwanda now has 44 percent of women in their parliament. “Amazing considering Rwanda is a more politically and economically backward country than Indonesia,” says Sita Aripurnami of the Women’s Research Institute.

The number of women in parliament post-election this year is expected to drop by almost half making it fall to around 6 percent. The introduction of the majority vote criteria means women will no longer be fast-tracked into the House of Representatives (DPR) as they were under the regulations of the 2004 election. This ‘zipper’ system required that one woman be placed in one of the top three positions of the party list, and
significantly increased their chances of being elected.

“Women’s rights activists are in mourning. For us,” says Sita Aripurnami, “the work of years of lobbying the government to put affirmative action for women into policy has been swept away in a few days.”

The new system of majority voting will make it difficult for women to compete against their wealthier and better-connected male counterparts. Women are handicapped in the race through lower education, family responsibilities and lower party list rankings.

Of the 38 parties, only 12 have women in the top position in more than 20 percent of the 77 electoral districts.

Calculations based on the 2004 election show that under the new system only 26 out of those 56 women in parliament would remain.

From her office at parliament, Eva Sundari, current DPR member for the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, PDI-P, admits she will have to double her energy this year to retain her seat. Three months’ pregnant and campaigning hard, Eva believes female candidates will never win if they compete against men
financially.

“I do not shower money like some candidates who give voters money after every meeting. I use dialogs to create an emotional connection between me and the voters.”

But do dollars and fame trump the heart in the election game?

According to Sandra Hamid, a Senior Director from the Asia Foundation, there are only two members in the DPR that were directly voted into the House in the 2004 election. Due to the high threshold, the remaining 500 or more were selected from party lists.

The new—majority vote wins a seat—criteria will transfer power from the party list to the ballot box. “Great news for democracy, but not fantastic news for the representation of women in politics,” says Hamid.

Representation will become a truer reflection of votes rather than internal party politics. “This is fantastic news for accountability and democracy,” says Hamid, but, “an array of problems arises when candidates are no longer ‘held hostage’ by their parties.”

Those with the cash will have the flashiest campaigns. Personality politics is in danger of surpassing policy at the voting booths.

Despite her strong education and current­ parliamentary seat, Eva Sundari feels threatened by the increasing shift to personality politics. She worries that the results of the election will see “more very popular people in parliament who are utterly incapable.”

“If people vote a pretty face into parliament, they will face the consequences in their district,” says Hamid. She believes that the behavior of Indonesian voters has been overlooked. “With the wheels turning in motion, politicians will one day learn that they will not be voted in if they don’t deliver. I have my trust in the Indonesian people to vote rationally.”

The new system does have its advantages. It will force DPR members to be more accountable. What it does not do is give female candidates the added boost they need to compete with men on equal terms.

“Majority rules,” argues Sita “do not necessarily correlate with democracy because men and women do not start from equal platforms.” Women entering politics are hindered both institutionally and culturally.

If a woman enters politics she is scrutinized for what she can bring to the table. “Men,” says Dr Nursanita Nasution, a legislature member from the Justice & Prosperity Party, PKS, “are never asked this question even though some of them are incapable.”

The reality is female politicians are not only representatives of their political parties but also of their gender.

Many women this year are making the switch from activist to politician proving that women are frustrated by being on the sidelines. A new generation of well-edu­cated, gung-ho women are coming through the ranks to replace the despotic­ crew of Suharto-era wives-cum-politicians.

Binny Buchori, an NGO activist for the past 20 years, has had enough of ‘democracy being hijacked by the elite’ and has developed a strong welfare-based campaign for Golkar in Yogyakarta.

“The reality is whether we like it or not, NGOs are not deciding what policies will be implemented. I don’t want to sit on the periphery any more.”

“Women know what women need,” sighs Binny. “And there are so many decisions that affect them.”

Top

Marwah Daud Ibrahim: Tipping the balance of power

The Jakarta Post
February 11, 2009
Matheos Viktor Messakh

Plenty of people, especially politicians, talk about inequality in Indonesian politics, but only a few can walk the walk.

Lawmaker Marwah Daud Ibrahim is not just walking it, but marching.

“My main concern as a politician is how to make people confident and believe that this nation is a big nation,” she says. “We are a great nation but we feel small; we are a rich country but we feel poor. It’s not enough to say that our inferiority comes from colonialism. As a nation we aren’t united in our dreams,
ideals and aspirations.”

In 1994, after school dropout rates hit new highs, Marwah founded the Orbit Scholarship Foundation. In 1995, when people were rashly cutting down forests, she promoted the idea of establishing an “agropolitan” ­ an agriculture-based village of unemployed graduates ­ at the logging site in Bukit Sutra, South
Sulawesi.

During the political upheaval of 1998, she was quietly visiting remote areas promoting the supply of energy and food based on local advantages.

Since 1996, she has been out and about in the country’s east, which tends to lag behind the west, visiting remote islands, and talking to people about how they can succeed. She also has traveled to educate women’s groups.

And in a political sphere dominated by men, Marwah is deeply involved in the fight for raising the number of women in parliament.

“We should be equal as a nation, regardless of our backgrounds. This is the first thing any leader must do.”

Marwah has always been positive about life and she wants to share that energy with others. “God gives every one of us our potential and also provides all the chances. The success of this nation is the  accumulation of the success of every single person in the country,” she says.

Thanks to her many contributions, Marwah was chosen on Nov. 5, 2008, by the Nation Integrity Council (DIB), a group of eight organizations, to run for president. Last year she was also chosen by the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) as one of the nation’s inspiring women.

She has since declared she will run for the presidency with or without the support of her party, Golkar. She has a dream for the country, which she hopes to share with all her fellow citizens: “Nusantara Jaya 2045” ­ a vision of Indonesia in 2045, leading not just Asia, but the world.

“A dream or vision is something between belief and hope,” she says. “You can get what you want if you have belief and hope as well as determination. God gives us the ability to dream and if you really do what you need to do, you can get what you want.”

Her own story demonstrates how she has lived this creed.

Marwah was born in Takkalala in South Sulawesi on Nov. 8, 1956, the second of eight children. From an early age, she demonstrated great academic prowess; while at school she dreamed of traveling the world, and developed an admiration for Benjamin Franklin because of his many contributions to history.

After graduating from high school with flying colors, Marwah decided to study communications at university, despite her family’s lack of money. She put herself through university thanks to a “Work Study Program” and then a scholarship.

When she later had the chance to go to the University of Pennsylvania to do a nondegree course, she decided not to return to Indonesia before finishing her doctorate, despite having funding for only one semester.

“When I first attended a class [in the United States], I knew this was the education system I needed. You already know that if you want achieve certain goals, you have to do certain things. We don’t have that in Indonesia.”

Through a combination of hard work, support from friends, scholarships and sheer determination, Marwah managed to get in the States both a master’s ­ after which she married Ibrahim Taju, her former colleague and activist ­ and a doctorate degree ­ the latter despite bearing two children and working two jobs
at the same time.

The key to her success, she says, is not a brilliant mind but planning.

“I’m only being diligent and using my time systematically. Preparation makes perfect,” says Marwah. “My father said that if you want to wake up at a certain time just tell yourself and if necessary tell the pillow. Even now I always wake up early and never use an alarm clock.”

In 1989, several colleagues asked Marwah to become a candidate for the Golkar Party. Finally, she turned to politics in 1992 when she was elected as a lawmaker, a position she has held ever since.

Now, she wants to run for president to help advance the nation.

“It’s not about the position but about the authority to do more for the people. Many things I have done still have a limited impact. I imagine this can become a national program. Everybody is talking about poverty, but there are differences in how to go about it.”

Top

Christians Fear Of Being Marginalized Ahead Of Polls

The Jakarta Post
Monday, February 2, 2009

Christians in the country are concerned Muslim parties could ratchet up their political leverage by winning more votes in the upcoming legislative elections, and continue to pin their hopes on nationalist parties, a discussion heard Saturday.

Dozens of regencies have enforced sharia-based ordinances without challenge recently, sparking fears in Christian communities that Islamic-based parties would push Indonesia toward a nationwide implementation of Islamic law if they win the April polls, speakers of the discussion said.

Centre for Strategic and International Studies researcher J. Kristiadi said that to a certain extent, Christians already felt they were being treated as second-class citizens in the predominantly Muslim country, as evidenced by the issuance of a joint ministerial decree which restricts them from building
their places of worship.

“A survey which revealed that 80 percent of university students chose to uphold sharia over Pancasila [pluralistic state ideology] is another cause for concern,” Kristiadi said, referring to a 2006 survey conducted by a nationalist group. The survey revealed that only 4.5 percent of students of prominent state universities in Jakarta, Bandung, Yogyakarta and Malang polled said they believed in Pancasila.

Aspiration for sharia has revived since the fall of New Order in 1998, with Islamic parties making several attempts to enact the strict Islamic law when the People’s Consultative Assembly convened to amend the Constitution between 1999 and 2002.

Of 38 political parties eligible for the April 9 elections, at least eight promote Islamic ideology compared to three Christian-based parties. All eyes, however, will be on the Muslim-based Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), as some pollsters have predicted it will pose a serious challenge to its major nationalist rivals, including the Golkar Party and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).

The passing into law of the controversial antipornography bill by the House of Representatives last year was dubbed a political move to woo Islamic voters.

Nationalist parties have traditionally dominated politics since the first legislative elections in 1955, but victories by Islamic parties in some regional elections over the last two years have been seen as a sign of a changing tendency.

“The nationalist parties may always stay in power, but there is a possibility that the Islamic parties will continue to grow in strength,” PDI-P lawmaker Yasonna H Laoly said.

He said that it would be difficult for Christians to earn political recognition not only because of the absence of a unified Christian party, but also due to a lack of political enthusiasm among the younger generation.

Rachmat T. Manullang of the Terang Indonesia group which hosted the discussion, called on Christians to exercise their right to vote in the elections or they would risk fulfilling their own prophecy. (dis)

Top


Ex-Generals Rebuke SBY for Remark

The Jakarta Post
Tuesday, February 3, 2009

A recent allegation made by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of bias within the Army's elite has angered scores of former generals.

Last week, the President said there was a movement inside the Army (TNI) to vote against a presidential candidate whose name began with "S".

It remains unclear whether the President was referring to himself, but many officers and observers believe there is no doubt that he was.

The former generals accused the President on Monday of driving a wedge into the Army by raising suspicions among officers, and demoralizing soldiers with the remark.

"The accusation will cause officers inside the Army to suspect one another," former Army chief of staff Gen. (ret) Tyasno Sudarto said.

He said Yudhoyono's statement could drive the army back into politics at a time when their neutrality was essential to the success of the upcoming elections, which kick off in April.

"I don't understand why the President should make such a statement. However you look at it, the statement is counter-productive," Tyasno said.

The retired four-star general said Yudhoyono had been spooked by signs of dissatisfaction in him among retired officers because the Constitution, Pancasila and the ideal of the unitary state had not been upheld by his government.

"In Aceh, for instance, they have been allowed to have local parties. What happens if they win? They can get out from Indonesia, and we will end up disintegrated," Tyasno said.

The President's controversial comment was made last week during a speech to members of the Indonesian military (TNI) and National Police at the State Palace which emphasized the importance of the security forces' neutrality in the elections.

He said an Army officer had mentioned there was an "ABS" (anyone but "S") movement. But then added that he did not believe the claim.

Army chief of staff Gen. Agustadi Sasongko said later Monday that he had found no evidence of such a movement.

"We have investigated, but we did not find any indication. However, we have warned officers to stay neutral during the election. We will punish those who involve themselves in politics," he said.

Agustadi said he had warned retired generals not to approach active military officers about political matters.

"I demand that the retired generals help the TNI stay neutral in the 2009 elections," he said.

Former deputy chief of staff Lt. Gen. (ret) Kiki Syahnakrie said the President should not have dropped the comment as it would encourage disunity within the TNI.

"Surely we have some former officers that have asked active soldiers to support their parties. But the Army has been mature, and will not be dragged into politics," he told reporters during a gathering of retired generals at Balai Kartini in South Jakarta.

Former coordinating minister for security and political affairs Gen. (ret) Agum Gumelar said that the "ABS" comment should be seen as an expression of disappointment and serve as a warning for the government.

Former Jakarta governor Lt. Gen (ret) Sutiyoso said Yudhoyono had been wrong to convey an allegation that Yudhoyono later claimed he did not believe.

"As SBY [Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono] himself is not sure of the existence of the `ABS' movement, why make a public comment about it?" Sutiyoso said.

He said Yudhoyono should have summoned the chief of the Army to discuss the matter in private.

Top


Military Disloyalty

The Jakarta Post
Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Editorial

Just four days after President Susilo Bambang Yudho-yono disclosed a rumor that military and police forces were conspiring against him in the upcoming elections, Army Chief Gen. Agustadi Sasongko Purnomo summoned 262 Army officers, 200 of which were retirees, for a meeting on Monday.

The general told the retired officers not to try to lure the Indonesian Military (TNI) into taking sides with certain candidates in the next presidential election. The President has childishly reacted to mere gossip.

It is understandable that the Army chief wants to convince the President — the supreme commander of the TNI — that everything is under control. He, however, needs to remember that retired officers are now civilians that no longer have a structural relation with the TNI. Moreover, as civilians, they have the
freedom to express and exercise their political rights.

As they proved in the 1999 and 2004 elections, Indonesian voters are very wise and perfectly capable of using their political rights peacefully. A small group of retired generals will not be able to change voters’ stance just because of the generals’ “provocation”.

It is difficult to understand why President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono popped up with such a cheap rumor in front of TNI and National Police (Polri) top brass. The President himself acknowledged that he was going only on gossip with his claim that there are campaigns within the Army and Polri to not support a presidential candidate whose name begins with “S”.

But, even if the rumor was proven to be true, the President still needs to act elegantly and democratically. The President’s move to scold his political opponents may remind Indonesians of former president Soeharto, who often accused “certain parties” or “a third party” of trying to unseat him. At that time the military responded to Soeharto’s verbal accusation by arresting political activists, often without evidence.

As a retired four-star general, the President is expected to be mature enough to respond to such cheap gossip appropriately. Perhaps he feels uneasy because there are several retired generals who have expressed their plan to run in the July presidential elections, including former TNI Chief Gen. (ret) Wiranto, former Army Strategic Reserves Command (Kostrad) Chief Lt. Gen. (ret) Prabowo Subianto and former Jakarta Governor Lt. Gen. (ret) Sutiyoso.

It is natural that these presidential aspirants seek support from the TNI and their former colleagues. But they need to remember that the election is not decided by a group of active or retired military officers, but by the people.

Yudhoyono apparently is still traumatized by an incident in the 2004 presidential election when Banyumas (in Central Java) Police Chief Sr. Comr. Andi Mapparesa urged the families of police officers and retired police officers to vote for then incumbent president Megawati Soekarnoputri. The police officers paid dearly for Andi’s mistake.

We call on the President to make thorough preparations before making public statements. It is true that the TNI should be neutral in politics, but even if some TNI generals try to play politics, the Indonesian people are mature enough and will not be easily agitated. They have learned much from Soeharto’s era.

The voters will give Yudhoyono another chance to lead the country for another five-year term should they feel satisfied with his performance in the last five years, or if they think other candidates are not better then him. The President should not be easily provoked by rumors.

Top


TNI Chief Plays Coy as 'S' Scandal Rattles Military

The Jakarta Globe
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Markus Junianto Sihaloho

Armed Forces Chief of Staff Gen. Djoko Santoso played coy on Wednesday when asked about possible questioning from the House of Representatives regarding the military's neutrality in the upcoming elections.

Djoko told reporters that he had not yet received a summons from the House asking him to explain what he knew about a rumor that an Army officer had tried to influence military families against voting for a presidential candidate whose name — like the president's — began with the letter "S."

"I do not know about that. I have yet to receive any letter from the House," Djoko said.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono made the allegation about the unnamed Army officer during a speech to members of the military, or TNI, and National Police regarding the importance of security forces remaining neutral during this year's elections. The remark has since unleashed a political tit-for-tat with the
military caught in the middle.

On Tuesday, Tjahjo Kumolo, who chairs the House's faction of the opposition Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, or PDI-P, called on Djoko to be prepared to talk about the issue next week at a scheduled appearance.

Asked whether he would be happy to oblige, Djoko said he would not comment on something so uncertain.

"There has not yet been any invitation [from the House], so I will wait for that first," he said.

The Army has since addressed the controversy by calling more than 150 retired former high-ranking Army officers in a closed-door meeting along with about 100 active Army officers, including Army Chief Gen. Agustadi Sasongko Purnomo, to discuss how they would maintain political neutrality.

On Wednesday, the commander of the National Air Defense Command Headquarters, Air Commodore JPF Sitompul, also called together hundreds of his subordinates in Jakarta to remind them of their obligation to maintain political neutrality.

Sitompul called on soldiers to remember that they worked on behalf of all Indonesians.

"So we must be fair to all the citizens by not supporting certain political groups," Sitompul said.

Meanwhile, Navy Chief Adm. Tedjo Edhy Purdijatno said on Wednesday he felt confident of his own subordinates' political neutrality.

He said he would not launch an investigation into whether any soldiers had broken the code.

Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono had summoned him, along with the Army, Air Force and senior military chiefs, last week to talk about the "S" rumor. "I do not know why the issue has grown so big," Tedjo said.

Agustinus Edy Kristianto, spokesman for the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation, or YLBHI, said on Wednesday that the military should remember their commitment to remain neutral.

He said most middle- and high-ranking officers had served in the military before the advent of wide-sweeping reforms, when the TNI both provided security and had a key role in the nation's political and social affairs.

He said the experience may have left the old guard susceptible to political temptations.

"We also should enact a law barring politicians from approaching soldiers for political purposes," Agustinus said.

Top

GENERAL ELECTIONS: War of Whispers

Tempo Magazine No. 24/IX
February 10-16, 2009
Wahyu Dhyatmika, Iqbal Muhtarom, Kurniasih Budi

President SBY raises the issue of police and armed forces personnel who may try and influence subordinates in this year’s elections.

IT is not clear when the information turned up at the presidential palace. What is clear is that the message was quite startling. The sender of the message informed President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono that there were army figures who were trying to influence their subordinates not to vote for a presidential candidate with the initial “S” in the upcoming elections in July. Other information revealed that there were police chiefs
who were actively forming campaign teams to help a certain presidential candidate win.

“I’m sure the information is not true. Again, I am sure the information is not true. Journalists, don’t forget to write it down,” said Yudhoyono at a speech at an Indonesian Military (TNI) Commanders and Police Coordination session at the end of January in the Presidential Palace, Jakarta.

Although the President has acknowledged that he did not believe the so-called news, this rumor keeps developing and the public is busy trying to figure out who was meant by Yudhoyono.

The 2009 General Elections is enlivened by the participation of a number of retired generals. These include Gen. (ret) Wiranto of the People’s Conscience Party (Hanura), Lt. Gen. (ret) Prabowo Subianto of the Great Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra), Lt. Gen. (ret) Sutiyoso of the Indonesia Prosperity Party, and Lt. Gen. (ret) Muhammad Yasin of the Functional Work Struggle Party. Even Yudhoyono’s closest contender, Megawati Soekarnoputri, is also backed by a number of former generals.

All those candidates are ex-officers who were influential in their eras. Wiranto was TNI Commander in Chief (1998-1999). Prabowo was former Commander of the Army Special Forces (1995-1998) and was once the Commander of the Army’s Strategic Reserves Command. As for Sutiyoso and Yasin, although their military careers did not reach the top circles, both have hordes of faithful supporters.

Many suspect that the rumor-mongering among military circles has to do with the heated contest between Yudhoyono and his colleagues. Something akin to a warm-up session before the election day.

                                        * * *
RUMORS abound that presidential candidates from the ranks of retired generals are making use of their ex-subordinates’ loyalty to form political lobbies. There are also stories that retired military officers are actively waging political guerrilla wars in military barracks to garner votes from soldiers’ families. Of course such stories are difficult to verify, and everybody denies them.

M. Yasin, who is mentioned as having a strong network of supporters among military personnel, was tight-lipped when Tempo met him last week. In the 2004 presidential election, Yasin was one of the central figures in Yudhoyono’s campaign team. He was said to be the man behind Yudhoyono’s landslide victory within military barracks. “He played a central role in setting up territorial networks to gather SBY voters,” said military observer from the University of Indonesia, Andi Widjajanto.

In this year’s election, Yasin has left Yudhoyono. Jackson Andre Kumaat, Secretary-General of the Functional Work Struggle Party, admitted that his party accommodates retired generals who are
disappointed with the Democrat Party, the party established by Yudhoyono. However, he emphasized that his party does not plan to make use of the military network to win in these elections.

Nonetheless, Jackson also acknowledged that his party once had an informal meeting with military circles to introduce themselves. “TNI’s neutrality is absolute, but their families, indeed, have the right to choose,” he said.

Similar renouncement came from Ahmad Muzani, Secretary-General of the Great Indonesia Movement. “As far as I know the relationship between Pak Prabowo and active military leaders is not that close anymore,” he said. Muzani guarantees that his party does not rely on Prabowo’s colleagues in the military in order to win in the elections. “Look, from around 400 legislature candidates, there are only six persons from retired
generals,” he said.

                                        * * *

PRESIDENTIAL spokesperson Andi Mallarangeng confirmed that the information on military notables who had been engaged in the “Anyone but ‘S’ for President” or ABS campaign did enter the Palace. But he was not sure when it was reported to the President, by whom, and through which channel.

“There are 3 million text messages that came to the President’s 9949 SMS, not to mention thousands of letters that went through PO Box 9949,” he told Tempo last week. Andi explained that for the present time anybody can give information to the President. “It can be entrusted to someone who wants to see the President, or it can be sent through mail, fax, text messages, emails, and others,” he said. “Of course not all information is credible.”

Only after verification and analysis can the information be categorized as accurate or not. The Palace staffs have their own mechanism to check the validity of any information that came through. “And it is this information concerning the ABS campaign that is not considered valid,” said Andi, now one of the
chairpersons of the Democrat Party.

If it is not considered credible and not worth responding to, why then was the issue raised by the President in a public forum? “It’s a kind of a reminder,” Andi said. The core of the President’s speech was, said Andi, to remind military and police leaders that they should remain neutral.

“The President has a right to give a warning, doesn’t he?” Andi said. “It would be wrong if the President says: OK generals, admirals, and marshals, you know who to choose, right?” he said laughing.

Presidential special staffer Heru Lelono reaffirmed that the President fully believed in the TNI’s and police’s ability to maintain their neutrality. He also made sure that there had never been meetings within the President’s inner circles to talk about the issue of military officers who are not neutral in the run-up to the general elections. “If the Palace considered such information was accurate there would have been meetings to discuss it,” Heru said. “It’s obvious that nothing happened.”

Although it is said that “nothing happened,” the President’s expression has made Indonesian Army leaders busy to make anticipation measures. Tuesday last week, four days after the President’s speech, Army Chief of Staff, General Agustadi Sasongko Purnomo gathered around 200 retired generals in the Balai Kartini in Jalan Gatot Subroto, Jakarta.

Present were, among others, former Army Chief of Staff, Gen. (ret) Ryamizard Ryacudu, ex-Chief of Staff of the Indonesian Armed Forces, Gen. (ret) Suaidi Marasabessy, and ex-Deputy Army Chief of Staff (ret) Kiki Syahnakri. The only presidential candidate present was Sutiyoso.

“We re-emphasized that TNI’s commitment is clear. We are neutral and not involved in politics for the 2009 General Elections,” said Agustadi after the session. “I asked the seniors not to involve their juniors in politics, since they are still bound to duties as the nation’s guards,” he said.

In line with Agustadi, head of the Association of Retired Army Officers, Lt. Gen. (ret) Soerjadi plainly said, “We asked our colleagues to help our alma mater take care of soldiers’ neutrality in the elections.”

Top


After the ABS Rumor

Tempo Magazine No. 24/IX
February 10-16, 2009

Editorial

The President raised the “anyone but S for President” rumor. It would be better to speak clearly about the neutrality of the TNI and police in the coming elections.

PRESIDENT Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono would have done better not to mention the problematic rumor at a meeting of leaders of the Indonesian Military (TNI) and the National Police (Polri) last week. The riddle of the “anyone but S for President” (ABS) thrown out by the State Palace has led to an unproductive debate.

We believe there is enough information on senior TNI officers who keep on spreading the ABS sentiment. Perhaps the President believes that he is “S” as indicated by the follow-up statement to his first one. According to the President, there are senior National Police officers rumored to have established a  campaign team” for one particular presidential candidate. The President said he did not believe the rumor, unfortunately, however, he had referred to it during a rarely-held meeting with his fellow ex-military officers.

If he had wanted to talk about the neutrality of the TNI and the police, he would have appeared more magnanimous if he had declared he would not elicit their support for the Democrat Party or his presidential bid in this year’s elections. He could have openly stated that he would not deploy military troops or police units in his own interests, while asking them to adhere to their principle of neutrality. The public would have welcomed such a statement from their President.

The President could have easily dealt with the “ABS” political maneuver by summoning the TNI commander and the police chief. As the supreme commander, he has the authority to act against any TNI or police personnel who are proven to violate their neutrality. In this way, the problem could have been resolved
internally, not by spreading rumors in public.

Presidential spokesman Andi Mallarangeng said that the President’s statement was based on Yudhoyono’s bad experience in the 2004 elections, when TNI personnel actively ordered their subordinates not to vote for Yudhoyono. The presidential office has now received a similar text message. Clearly, there is no benefit from taking a text message at face value and turning it into a public issue. In fact, the “ABS” controversy seems to have boomeranged on SBY.

The political neutrality of the TNI is very clear. Article 2 of Law No. 34/2004 explicitly states that a professional army is an army that is trained, educated not to be involved in practical politics or in business. According to the constitution, the TNI and Polri (National Police) should be non-partisan.

Since the reform movement began 10 years ago, the TNI has shown that it is well aware that it should not side with any one presidential candidate or political party. To its credit, it has demonstrably been making continuous efforts to improve itself. For example, it has accepted with equanimity that its political rights are limited.

It was, in fact, Yudhoyono himself who raised the TNI’s neutrality. It does not sound right that he now fears the very concept he molded. On the other hand, what benefit would be derived from his initial statement, if all he intended was to praise the TNI leadership for its neutrality?

The rumor has caused some disquiet among the rank and file of the military and the police. A number of former TNI leaders gathered to discuss an issue that should never have been raised. We hope that in future the President will think more carefully before making statements, especially if they are only based on a
text message he received.

The President would do better to choose his words carefully on the matter of the TNI and the police neutrality, instead of being provoked by a rumor.

Top


Indonesia's Silent Voters Being Heard

Asia Times
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Megawati Wijaya

JAKARTA - When President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono became Indonesia's first directly elected democratic leader in 2004, the former soldier was catapulted to power despite the fact his Democratic Party had won a mere 7.5% of the vote in previous legislative elections.

Now with new legislative and presidential elections scheduled for this year, political analysts are focusing on the potentially pivotal role of the so-called golput, registered voters who choose for various reasons to either stay away from the polls or cast blank ballots, which accounted for around 25% of the electorate at the 2004 legislative polls.

With relatively peaceful and orderly elections in both 1999 and 2004, Indonesia's decade-old transition from authoritarian to democratic rule has been widely lauded as a regional success story. Former strongman Suharto, who throughout his 32-year tenure was officially returned to power in six different elections, tightly controlled the country's electoral process, which he famously referred to as "festivals of democracy".

At that time only three political parties were allowed to participate in the polls, which were consistently won by the military-linked Golkar party; in the first elections of the post-Suharto era, 145 parties registered and 48 parties finally took part in the 1999 polls. In 2004, the legislative polls were contested by 24 political parties in a sprawling democratic process that spanned 14,000 islands, three time zones, and entailed more than 500,000 polling stations.

Less critical attention, however, has been paid to the role of the golput, the huge number of registered voters who choose to not take part in the 2004 legislative polls after nearly 95% of the electorate took part in the 1999 elections. Accounting for over 25% of eligible voters, the golput was the real percentage winner of the 2004 elections, outpacing the top vote-getting Golkar party, which received just 21.6% of the popular vote.

The term "golput", an antithetical spin on the word Golkar, harks to the Suharto-era when voters rebelled against the oppressive, military-backed New Order regime by casting empty ballots or purposefully spoiling their votes. Then the golput figure was smaller, estimated on average at around 10%, as Indonesians feared the consequences of their acts of defiance.

In the democratic era, the golput is much larger and defined loosely as anyone who fails to vote during the election. The reasons for non-participation vary: some can't be bothered to vote; some are overwhelmed by the electoral choices; and, perhaps most crucially, many feel the democratic process has - like its authoritarian forerunner - failed to adequately address the crucial issues of inequality, injustice and corruption that successive elected leaders have promised to tackle.

Analysts say it also demonstrates a rising political maturity among voters who are not willing to simply settle and choose among parties and candidates they feel are out of touch with average voters' needs and aspirations. While more democracy has brought positive changes, including a freer press and greater scrutiny of public affairs, elected leaders have failed to tackle the many systemic and economic problems that directly impact on voters' livelihoods.

Silent protests With new legislative elections scheduled for this April 9, the golput phenomenon is expected to make its popular absence felt again. Judging by the dismal turnout at recent regional elections, research company Indo Barometer, among others, predict that the golput figure could reach as high as 40%.

For instance, the golput rate at the 2008 Cilacap in Central Java province and neighboring Banyumas regency elections stood respectively at 43% and 45%. Meanwhile, the golput rate at the Central Java gubernatorial election also held last year was estimated at nearly 70%.

Those embarrassingly high rates of non-participation are raising hackles among politicians. Cilacap Regent Probo Yulastoro reportedly promised 23 district chiefs in his regency that each village administration would receive a free motorcycle if they could keep the golput rate at or lower than 5% in their villages during the election.

The Indonesian Ulama Council (MUI), an umbrella organization of major Islamic groups, even issued a fatwa stating that it is "a moral sin" if one does not cast his vote in this year's elections. The MUI is known to support certain Islamic political parties which in past polls have performed poorly.

In a public opinion survey of over 5,000 workers from both the government and private sectors spanning 33 Indonesian provinces, only 17.8% respondents said that they would choose not to vote. But the actual golput tally at upcoming elections could be much higher as 76.2% of the respondents in the same poll said that
they "are not interested" in following the campaigns of both political parties and presidential candidates.

Analysts and academics have different interpretations of the high non-vote rates. According to Max Lane, a writer, researcher, and political analysts with over 38 years experience in the country, Indonesians are not politically apathetic. "Everyone, everywhere, in Indonesia is talking and enjoys talking about politics," he said.

"If Indonesians don't feel that any of the parties are championing their causes, they have the legal right not to choose," said Evi Arifin, a researcher at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. By not choosing, she said, the golput has made a clear statement by not supporting any of the proposed parties and candidates.

An increasingly free media has highlighted that national sentiment. The satirical political talk show, Demo Crazy, shown on national television recently referred to the people running for upcoming elections as itu-itu saja lagi or "the same old faces running again". Indeed the 2009 presidential poll seems likely to be a rerun of the previous one, with former president Megawati Sukarnoputri and incumbent Yudhoyono widely expected to square off again.

This is despite the fact that neither candidate while in office was able to make a serious dent in endemic economic problems, including persistently high poverty and unemployment rates that are expected to only get worse as the global and financial economic crisis impacts on the country's crucial manufacturing and export sectors.

Meanwhile, organized groups of laborers and farmers are still not adequately represented in government. That, analysts say, explains the high frequency of street demonstrations mounted against Yudhoyono's government. "[General elections] are only for powerful people or people who used to be in power to choose who is going to be in power next. This [election] is just a form of fraud," said Emelia Yanti, the secretary general of United Federation of Independent Labor .

After 10 years of democracy, many Indonesians feel that government has failed to bring through new policies for real improvements to their livelihoods. While there are fundamental differences between the Suharto-era golput and its new democratic incarnation, the symptoms of voter frustration with Indonesia's political system are glaringly similar.

In 2004, none of the major political parties garnered enough votes to reach the 25% threshold legally  equired to nominate their own presidential candidate. That led to complicated coalition building, which effectively catapulted the military-linked Golkar back to the fore in a power-sharing arrangement with Yudhoyono's Democratic Party.

That less-than-ringing electoral mandate has made it difficult for Yudhoyono to pass badly needed economic and other reforms through the legislature. Whether Indonesia can afford another weak administration in the wake of growing global turmoil is an increasingly important electoral question. But if recent elections and opinion polls are any indication, the golput will likely de facto win another Indonesian poll.

Megawati Wijaya is a Singapore-based journalist. She may be contacted at megawati.wijaya@gmail.com

Top


The Thinker: After the Death Of a Legislator

The Jakarta Globe
Monday, February 9, 2009
Taufik Darusman

The violent death of the speaker of North Sumatra's legislative council at the hands of brutal protesters last week may present antidemocratic forces with a pretext to question the viability of democracy in Indonesia.

No matter how tragically Council Speaker Abdul Aziz Angkat's life came to an end, one must not lose faith in democracy.

It is after all a system that Winston Churchill once called "the worst form of government except for all those other forms."

Democracy has found a niche in Indonesian political life, and lest anyone nurture doubt about it, they should refer to Time magazine's recent five-page report on democracy in Asia. Indonesia stood out in the region for having, warts and all, a thriving democracy.

The event in Medan, in which hundreds of protesters demanded the establishment of a separate Tapanuli province by breaking into the council's building to impose their will — and in the course of their action beat Angkat to death and destroyed Rp 400 million ($34,400) worth of furniture — was more than a case of
democracy gone haywire.

The issue's intrinsic sensitivity, business interests, politics, the local people's unique temperament and the incompetence of the police all set the stage for a protest that turned deadly.

Officials insisted that the more than 200 police officers on hand to monitor the protest were outnumbered. But it was never made clear why reinforcements were not called in or repressive measures taken to deal with the acts of violence on the part of the protesters.

The president, who is often criticized for being overcautious, this time showed his true colors as an ex-military man

As the law goes, protesters here are required to apply for a permit from the police prior to holding demonstrations. They need to state the number of people taking part in the protest, its location and its duration.

In short, the police actually had ample time to prepare their personnel to be on site should the protest turn ugly.

It was only months ago when Muslim zealots beat up pro-democracy activists during a rally held in Jakarta.

In that case, too, the police appeared hapless in dealing with the incident. And again they argued that they were outnumbered and lacked the proper anti-riot equipment.

The key is to deal sternly with the perpetrators (and possible mastermind) in a way that reassures the public that no crime goes unpunished, a specific trait of democracy.

No less important is for the probe — and the chief of the police — to make sure police officers in the field know how to handle such situations.

The chief of the National Police has fired both North Sumatra Province's top cop and the officer in charge of the city of Medan.

But as is normal here, he would not have done the deed without the concurrence of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who had earlier summoned key ministers to discuss the matter.

As presidential spokesman Andi Mallarangeng earlier said: "The president is of the view that nobody is immune to the law in this country, including law enforcers."

The president, who is often criticized for being overcautious, this time showed his true colors as a former military man and made the right decision.

And while at it, he also has put a moratorium on any discussion related to increasing the number of provinces.

Creating new provinces by lumping together a number of districts has often proved to be an exercise that creates inefficiency and put strains on the national budget. Worse, new provinces are often managed by people not up to the task.

The death of Angkat has indeed called attention to the need to review practices that were put in place in the early days of reforms.

It should also set in motion an overall review of the performance of the police, and encourage the nation's moral leaders to condemn certain sections of our society for uncivil behavior.

That is the least that can be done so that the untimely death of the 51-year-old legislator was not in vain.

Taufik Darusman is a veteran Jakarta-based journalist.

Top


'Many Mistakes' On Final Ballots

The Jakarta Globe
Monday, February 9, 2009
Camelia Pasandaran

The General Elections Commission began printing ballot papers late on Sunday for the April 9 legislative elections, ignoring complaints from political parties and the country's electoral supervisory body that the ballots contained serious errors which could undermine the fairness of the polls.

Despite a raft of errors discovered during the commission's weekend validation of its lists of political parties and candidates, including differing font sizes of candidates' names and incorrect party logos, the commission ordered printing to begin on Sunday night in Surabaya, East Java Province, insisting
it would make all necessary corrections before the presses began rolling.

The decision was lambasted by political party representatives and questioned by a member of the Election Supervisory Board, which has long been critical of the commission, or KPU, and has stated that it feared the elections would have to be delayed due to organizing problems.

"This is about fairness," said Bambang Eka Cahya Widodo, a member of the supervisory board. "It seems unfair when there is a candidate's name with a small font size and the other candidate names are printed with a big font size.

"But I don't know whether the commission still has time to fix the mistakes. It's already late to start the ballot paper printing," he said. "We have warned them since long ago that these kind of technical errors may happen and the KPU should anticipate taking more time for revisions."

Almost all of the political parties attending Saturday's validation process at the KPU headquarters in Jakarta found mistakes with either their party logo or candidate names.

"There are still many mistakes found on the ballot papers," Idrus Marhan, a member of the Golkar Party's campaign success team, said on Sunday, noting that the iconic Golkar Party logo, the green and black banyan tree, was entirely in black.

The Star Reform Party complained that the color of its logo had also been changed from light to dark green, while the Workers Party logo was black, rather than dark blue. The Indonesian National Party of Marhaenism said the color of its logo continued to be blurred despite several attempts to have it corrected.

Another common complaint, which the KPU said during Sunday's proofing and corrections process that it would ignore, concerned the font sizes of candidates' names.

"The font size of each of the candidates' names is different from one another, depending on the length of the name," Idrus said. "This will have a bad effect as, psychologically, people tend to select the name that is highlighted because it is bold or has a bigger font size."

He said that while the Golkar Party logo had been printed incorrectly, "the most crucial thing is also there are many errors with the names of the candidates."

Despite all the mistakes, the KPU issued orders on Sunday to begin printing as scheduled.

"There won't be any delay," said Syamsul Bahri, a commission member.

He added that the KPU's regulations mandated that candidates with long names would be printed in a smaller font size to ensure they fit.

Top


Internal Rift Threatening Golkar Party

The Jakarta Globe
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Markus Junianto Sihaloho & Muninggar Sri Saraswati

Debate about the need for the Golkar Party to name a presidential candidate before the April legislative elections has sharpened an already damaging internal rift within the 2004 poll-winning party, analysts said on Tuesday.

Airlangga Pribadi, a political analyst at the state Airlangga University, said Golkar chairman Jusuf Kalla's faction believed that the party should focus on winning the April elections instead of screening presidential candidates, as it expected to maintain the coalition with the Democratic Party in July's presidential election.

This view was not shared by the faction of Agung Laksono, deputy chairman, and Surya Paloh, Golkar's advisory council chairman, who believe Golkar should name its presidential candidate before the April elections.

"The two groups are the main ones. There is also a smaller faction that supports the sultan and a faction led by Akbar Tandjung," Airlangga said, referring to Golkar advisory council member Sri Sultan Hamengkubuwono X and the former Golkar chairman.

In the absence of a Golkar endorsement, the sultan has announced that he would stand on his own and has approached other parties to seek backers for his presidential bid. Akbar wanted a party convention to select candidates for the presidency and vice presidency, a move that Kalla has dismissed as a waste of time.

Ikrar Nusa Bakti, political expert of the Indonesia Science Institute, said Kalla seemed reluctant to run as a presidential candidate because a number of opinion polls have showed that his popularity was low among voters.

"He would not mind becoming a vice president as long as the party has a say in the government, even if Golkar wins more than 20 percent of the votes in the April election," Ikrar said.

The rift between the two Golkar leaders was visible when Agung two days ago began seeking input from regional chapters on potential presidential candidates, a move that had been scheduled for March or May, said M. Qodari, director for the IndoBarometer survey group. The move was made while Kalla was overseas.

Paloh has also suggested thatGolkar sever ties with the Democratic Party and form a coalition with other parties like the rival Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, or PDI-P.

"Kalla has been able to contain the rift so far. But Agung's group and other factions are likely to intensify the pressure since the Democratic Party has not named Kalla as Yudhoyono's vice presidential candidate," Paloh said, referring to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who has been endorsed by the Democratic Party.

"This is not the will of one of two groups only. The selection is the mandate from the Golkar national meeting in November. We will name the presidential and vice presidential candidates after the April poll," Agung said, defending his move. He said Kalla was informed about the process.

Akbar has accused Kalla of using the party to pursue his interest in running as Yudhoyono's vice presidential candidate.

"As leaders, we must put our party interests beyond our personal goals," Akbar said. "Golkar is a big party and has the chance to endorse its own presidential candidate. How could a big party like Golkar not have the confidence to endorse its own presidential candidate?"

Top

Internal conflict takes shape ahead of national meeting

The Jakarta Post
Friday, February 13, 2009

The Golkar Party is nearing breaking point over whether to name its own presidential candidate or maintain its coalition with the Democratic Party, political pundits said Thursday.

The current national leadership of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Vice President Jusuf Kalla is the result of the coalition formed for the last election in 2004.

"The Democratic Party's recent statement has made the tension worse," political observer Arbi Sanit told The Jakarta Post.

On Monday, Democratic Party deputy chairman Ahmad Mubarok said Golkar would grab no more than 2.5 percent of total votes in the April 9 legislative elections.

The statement outraged Golkar leaders and forced Yudhoyono as the Democratic Party's chief patron to rebuke Mubarok and play down the "offensive" remark.

Paramadina University political expert Bima Arya Sugiarto said more cracks had begun appearing within Golkar in the run-up to the elections, adding, "Obviously, this is a conflict between the party's elites."

He said the internal bickering would cause serious polarization among party members, unless chairman Kalla failed to resolve it.

"Senior members like Agung Laksono want Golkar to name its own presidential candidate and not rely on the SBY-Kalla team," Bima said.

Last week, Agung said Golkar's national meeting on Feb. 17-18 might discuss presidential candidates, besides the party's preparations for the elections. However, Kalla denied the issue would be part of the agenda.

Arbi said Kalla was now in a critical position, facing both internal and external pressure that could affect his political career.

"Kalla believes he must work with SBY to win a second term in office. But the situation in the party may force him to think twice," he said.

"Golkar members hope if their party wins the presidential election with their own candidate, they will gain more power to occupy strategic positions in the government."

Both Arbi and Bima said the upcoming Golkar meeting promised some surprising results, including a possible candidate for the presidency.

Golkar deputy secretary Rully Chairul Azwar denied reports of tension between party members.

"Differences of opinion are normal in politics," he said.

Golkar executive Priyo Budi Santoso agreed, saying "it is not true" the party was splitting into two camps - one backing the Yudhoyono-Kalla team, and the other opposed to this notion.

He added Golkar would decide on its presidential candidate after the April 9 legislative elections.

Speculation is rife that Golkar might opt to back Kalla, Akbar Tadjung, Surya Paloh, Agung Laksono, Sultan Hamengkubuwono X, Aburizal Bakrie or Fadel Muhammad, rather than Yudhoyono, for the presidency. (naf)

Money No Match for Political Message

The Jakarta Globe
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Paul Rowland

It is a commonly held belief that money is the most important factor in winning elections. That he or she with the most money will always win. That a candidate with deep pockets can cynically buy the affections of voters and triumph. It is a myth that persists in Indonesia and around the world. The truth is much more complicated and that voters are smarter than that.

It is not just in Indonesia that such a perception persists and there are good reasons for this. Despite numerous attempts at campaign finance reform in the United States, the amount of money being spent on campaigns by both Republicans and Democrats continues to increase dramatically. George W. Bush broke records in 2000 when he spent more than $100 million and he doubled that figure in 2004, outspending his Democratic rivals. Barack Obama's successful bid for the White House cost nearly three quarters of a billion dollars.

Even campaigns for Congress can be hideously expensive. The current governor of New Jersey, John Corzine, spent more than $60 million to win a vacant Senate seat in 2000. With such shocking amounts of money being spent, is it any wonder that many believe that money always wins?

Certainly it is true that money is an important factor and a candidate or political party cannot be nationally competitive without money. Indonesia is a huge country with more than 170 million voters spread over thousands of islands. In Indonesia, it costs huge amounts of money for a political party simply to exist as it needs to operate thousands of offices across the country in order to qualify for party status. Running a
competitive election campaign at the national level requires the production of television advertisements and the purchase of expensive airtime on media outlets. A competitive election campaign requires a lot of money.

Candidates who have a program and a message relevant to voters and who work hard can beat the odds

So, if you have the most money you will win, right? Not so fast.

It is true that in most cases in the United States, the winning candidate is the one who spends the most money; it is also true that candidates who win more easily attract funding. It is true that George W. Bush spent more than his opponent in 2000 and 2004 and that Obama outspent McCain by a nearly a factor of two, but did they win because they spent lots of money, or did they raise a lot of money because they were perceived as viable candidates?

Even large sums of money cannot make people vote for a candidate or party that they don't like. Billionaire Steve Forbes spent $48 million of his own money and got nowhere in his quest to become president. Remember Ross Perot? He also spent millions of dollars of his own money in 1992 and is now a footnote in
history.

A controversial University of Chicago economist, Steven Levitt, conducted a study of nearly 1,000 congressional campaigns across the United States since 1972 and concluded that money had very
little effect once you eliminated factors such as the intrinsic appeal of the candidate and the closeness of the race.

The same holds true in Canada, where my own political party has maintained for years that it didn't win national elections because it didn't have the money to compete effectively against larger parties that had access to large war chests built on corporate donations.

Recent campaign finance reform in Canada has outlawed corporate donations to political parties and government funding of parties has, in many ways, leveled the playing field. The party still attracts a maximum of a fifth to a quarter of the electorate and has a similar number of seats as it won 25 years ago. The stark fact is that the party remains unpopular in many parts of the country because voters don't agree with the ideas the party espouses, not because it doesn't spend enough money.

Finally, the Indonesian example of 2004 leads one to believe that money is important but not the decisive factor. It is hard to precisely track how much money is spent in Indonesian elections and by whom, however some broad trends can be identified. It seems clear that Golkar and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, or PDI-P, were the biggest spenders among political parties in the 2004 legislative elections, and they did indeed come out with the largest number of seats. The correlation does not, however, prove that  they won more seats because they spent more money. Were they bigger because they spent more money or did they spend more money because they are bigger? Consider the fact that the two parties that grew the most in 2004 were the Prosperous Justice Party, or PKS, and the Democratic Party, parties that spent less money than the two biggest parties.

The above-mentioned numbers cannot tell us why voters behave as they do, but they do indicate that there are factors other than money that affect the way people vote.

Changes in the election law and a recent ruling by the Constitutional Court have resulted in some dramatic changes in the way candidates are campaigning, and it is likely that more money will be spent by more candidates than ever before. It is also true that more candidates will be working harder for their votes than ever before, selling themselves village to village and door to door.

We should not diminish the challenges that candidates, particularly women, face in raising money for their campaigns. The lack of money can be a serious obstacle to success in politics. Having money, however, is no substitute for an appealing candidate with a compelling message. If the administration of the election is clean, even large amounts of money cannot make the voters buy a political product they do not want. Conversely, a candidate who is known in his or her community, has a program and message that is relevant to voters and who works hard can beat the odds.

Paul Rowland is the senior resident director for the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs in Indonesia.

Top

Insight: The State of Our Democracy: Disheartening and Alarming

The Jakarta Post
February 13, 2009
Bachtiar Effendy

It has been a little over 10 years since we chose to adopt a democratic system of government. This deliberate choice has given us remarkably positive international exposure. Indonesia is now highly regarded as the third largest democratic country after India and the United States. In a somewhat similar tone,
Indonesia is also applauded as a current example of how Islam and democracy can work and relate quite amicably.

This is due to the fact that Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world, and yet it practices democracy. Because of this, rather than the political experiences of Turkey or Pakistan, many believe that Indonesia provides a positive example, regardless of the differences between Islam and democracy, so that an intellectual debate over whether the former is compatible with the latter is no longer relevant.

In short, democracy has given us so much credit internationally. Perhaps this is the only theme we can exploit internationally, following the unprecedented socioeconomic crises of the late 1990s, which we are still now unable to recover from completely.

Domestically, much can be said about the paramount importance of our democratic practices. Our commitment to uphold democracy has liberated Indonesians from the shackle of both Sukarno’s and Soeharto’s authoritarian periods. It has thrown open the country’s Pandora box that has made politics no longer an arena enjoyed primarily by the “praetorian guard.” It has made politics relaxed and unrestricted. More importantly, it has made freedom of expression guaranteed, public offices contested freely and openly. Simply put, no one can deny the rigor of the practice of Indonesia’s democracy especially in areas of
political procedure and partisan politics.

Substantively, and especially beyond partisan politics, however, there have been far fewer success stories to tell, the conspicuous evidence of which has been our inability to make “all good things go together” in our democracy: the realization of political stability on the one hand and economic prosperity on the other. These are two areas where we as a nation are still almost endlessly struggling.

Quite understandably, this is what has made many Indonesians seemingly apprehensive of democracy. There are still too many doubters of democracy. And recent developments have made even more question whether this nation sincerely and truly believes in the merit and efficacy of democracy.

Three recent cases can be used to support the above statement. First, the anarchic demonstration that resulted in the death of the North Sumatra Legislative Council speaker, Abdul Aziz Angkat; no one deliberately tried to link the brutal attack by demonstrators on Aziz that cost him his life with bad practice
in our democracy. Yet many saw it as alarming evidence that we are actually lagging behind as far as the sociocultural prerequisites of democracy are concerned. Our social capital to practice a full-fledged democracy is very much limited ­ knowing that for so many years, decades in fact, we had been accustomed
to living in a non- democratic sociocultural and political environment. This history, which to some extent is difficult to forget, only equipped many of us to see democracy in a very primitive way, ignorance of its fundamental value that it has to be exercised peacefully.

Second, the lack of social capital to practice democracy is also demonstrated by the failure of many of our political practitioners to concede and accept defeat. Our success in holding free, fair, and peaceful national and regional elections were often marred by our unwillingness to recognize that our competitors are better than us and therefore deserve to have much more support from the public. This is what we have been
witnessing especially since 2004 when the national and regional elections were conducted directly.

A positive note needs to be highlighted, however, particularly for those who contested the election results using peaceful means and proper channels. But repeated protests, as in the case of the East Java gubernatorial election, only strengthens our assessment that we still have very much to learn about how to
enrich our social capital pertinent to democratic practices.

Finally, the disheartening state of our democracy can also be measured by the Constitutional Court’s decision on how election winners should be decided. Late last year, Indonesia’s Constitutional Court overturned one important article of election law. Instead of being based on the hierarchic lists, the court ruled that whoever gets more votes wins the election.

In fairness, such is the most appropriate law governing elections. It not only accords with the very basic principle of democracy, but also decency. But, in a situation in which politics is not designed coherently to accommodate that principle, it will only make democracy more expensive.

Each candidate, regardless of his or her hierarchic ranking on the ballot, has to use all of his armory and resources to marshal the necessary votes to win the election. Given this situation, where many voters are fonder of funds than programs, fame than competency, this means a candidate needs to spend more
money. And elections become a popularity or celebrity contest. If this is the case, one can only ask: where the future of our democracy is heading?

The writer is a professor of political science at the State Islamic University (UIN), Jakarta.

Top