Democracy in Action

Posted by John
Iranian clerics horrified the world last month by stealing a presidential election through back-room maneuvers and state-sponsored violence in the streets. Today, Indonesian presidential election officials were in the streets of our neighborhood, but for a completely different reason. They were counting votes right in front of us.

Indonesia and Iran, two Muslim-majority countries on opposite sides of Asia, have had remarkably different experiences with democracy over the last decade. Iran’s theocratic regime disqualifies reform candidates from running before elections even start, while Indonesians voted for more than 40 parties during the legislative election last April. Iran’s rulers shut down reformist newspapers by the dozen, yet Indonesia’s press is free to investigate and criticize the government. And while Iranian officials implausibly awarded an election for an unpopular president a few hours after it ended, Indonesian officials remain circumspect about declaring the wildly popular incumbent a winner until all the votes are counted.

Watching that count begin at outdoor polling stations in our neighborhood this afternoon had a reassuring civic effect. Half an hour after the polls closed in our Setiabudi neighborhood of Medan, four election officials were sifting through ballots in plain view (see above). One worker opened them and searched for the tell-tale checkmark before announcing “satu,” “dua,” or “tiga”—numbers corresponding to the three presidential candidates. Another sorted the counted ballots into piles—with incumbent president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s stack quickly towering over piles for the other two candidates. A third worker marked the vote tally on a posterboard, with Yudhoyono’s tick marks wrapping into a second row while his rivals managed a few lonely scratches. A fourth kept track of the total number of ballots to ensure everything added up properly. Neighborhood residents, pinkies inked purple after voting earlier in the day, gathered around the table to watch the count unfold.

At first, Danielle and I kept our distance. We were curious about the vote count, but did not want to disrupt the process. Before long, some of the polling station volunteers invited us over, pointing to open chairs and offering us glasses of water. One official paused briefly from his count to smile playfully into the camera as Danielle prepared to take a photo. Compare this to Iran, were foreign journalists were beaten, deported and accused of inciting rebellion. Here in Indonesia, two uninvited election tourists were welcomed with open arms.

By the end of the hour, the count showed 206 votes for Yudhoyono, 51 for Jusuf Kalla and 25 for Megawati Sukarnoputri. At least in our well-to-do neighborhood, a natural Yudhoyono stronghold, it was a runaway win for the incumbent. More importantly, representatives from the three candidates’ parties had watched poll workers conduct the count in real time. For an emerging democracy, this kind of transparency can build meaningful trust in the electoral process.

Unlike the outright fraud and intimidation in Iran, the main concern about Indonesia’s elections involved bringing some semblance of order to a potentially chaotic process. Today, Indonesia’s 175 million eligible voters had all of six hours, 7 a.m. to 1 p.m., to mark their preference for president at hundreds of thousands of polling stations on thousands of islands. As many as a quarter of these voters were disenfranchised amid procedural confusions during a national legislative election three months ago. These hardly sound like conditions to inspire confidence.

Yet voting appeared to proceed smoothly today in Medan. Indonesia declares Election Day a national holiday, meaning the streets were actually quieter than usual. Each polling station serves fewer than 600 voters, cutting down on potential wait times. These booths were well-staffed, with four to five election officials and a local police officer at each. So rather than seeing long lines in the world’s third-largest democracy, only a handful of people were voting in the ten or so stations we visited. In addition, voting took a few seconds since the ballot only contained the vote for president. The Indonesian government certainly set up adequate election supply to meet voter demand.

Problems with voting lists, which may have kept as many as 48 million Indonesians from voting in the April legislative election, almost threatened the presidential vote as well. Voting lists that are supposed to contain all eligible voters were not updated, leaving off names of people who had moved or married. Fortunately, all three presidential candidates agreed yesterday to a Constitutional Court ruling that allowed Indonesians to cast a provisional ballot as long as they show their national ID card. It’s far from a perfect solution, but it promises a far more inclusive election.

Of course, the candidates’ agreement about the voter list issue hasn’t stopped some of them from complaining. Megawati’s enigmatic running mate, former general Prabowo Subianto, made a statement this evening criticizing the voter list compromise and the media’s early vote counts showing Yudhoyono in the lead. He made the statement in English, presumably for the benefit of the international media that he hopes to set on edge. Prabowo also claims he and Mega are in the lead, even though most exit polls show them at less than 30 percent. No one shows signs of taking him seriously.

The Election Commission promises to certify the results by July 25, but we should know the final outcome much sooner. President Yudhoyono has close to 60 percent of the vote in initial national returns—less than the 73 percent he won in our neighborhood, but still enough to avoid a September runoff if it holds through the night. If they have to recount 175 million ballots, Jakarta’s central square would the perfect spot. We’ll be there with our cameras.

48 Hours before the Vote

Posted by John
As Americans celebrated independence on Saturday, Indonesians were treated to another familiar civic ritual — the barrage of last-minute election advertisements. Streets were plastered with signs and flags proclaiming the virtues of the three candidates: incumbent President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY); vice president Jusuf Kalla, running against his boss; and former president Megawati Sukarnoputri, who wants her old job back.

During the Saturday evening news broadcast, more than 80 percent of the ads were campaign commercials. By now, Danielle sings along with refrains she knows by heart, and Indonesians who’ve been subjected to a month of campaign mottos can probably tell you in their sleep that Kalla stands for “better and faster” government, Megawati is “for the people,” and SBY intends to lead the people “Forward!”

The most frequently aired advertisement features hundreds of SBY supporters in color-coordinated outfits carrying similarly color-coordinated flags to the top of a verdant mountain where a huge red-and-white Indonesian flag sways majestically in the wind. There’s nothing about SBY’s agenda, just a dose of stirring nationalism, impressive choreography and reminder that SBY is number two on the ballot. You can probably afford this kind of celebratory strategy when you have a 40-point lead in the polls. (I’ve searched for this and other ads on YouTube, but no luck so far.)

Meanwhile, in a country where close to 90 percent of the voters are Muslims, the Kalla campaign has sought to capitalize on the fact that neither SBY’s wife nor the wife of his running-mate wear jilbabs (head scarves). Both Kalla’s wife and his running mate’s wife wear them. Kalla draws attention to this bit of symbolic politics because the major Islamic parties are supporting SBY’s coalition, and this jilbab issue might lure some voters away from the president.

Kalla billboard ads regarding headscarves (see sample above, from the New York Times) are the first ads I’ve seen where candidates’ wives are featured more prominently than the candidates themselves. We saw one ad bearing the words “Insya Allah” (Allah willing) above the wives’ heads, further driving home the point. Another Kalla ad stresses his outsider status—from Sulawesi, he would be the first non-Javanese Indonesian elected to the presidency. None of these ads appear to be gaining traction, as Kalla is mired in third place in most polls.

Megawati seems the most willing to engage in critical campaigning. In a more combative style most Americans would recognize, her ads outline promises that SBY made but did not fulfill during his five-year term. One ad features some wretchedly melodramatic acting, where a boy celebrates after hearing a radio broadcast promising free elementary school education. His parents embrace him and regretfully inform him he can’t believe everything politicians say. It turns out they won’t be able to send him to school because they would still have to pay hidden school fees. Of course, voters’ disappointment with Megawati’s own inability to deliver on her promises as president from 2001 to 2004 hurts her credibility on this front.

The preponderance of political ads in the streets and on the airwaves reached a saturation point all last week. Come Sunday morning, however, all the flags and signs came down. TV broadcasts returned to normal, punctuated by commercials for coffee and cell phones rather than 60-second candidate biographies. In turns out that Indonesia has campaign rules that strictly prohibit political messages in the final three days before the polls open. Accustomed to American campaigns where supporters wave signs on street corners until the polls close on Election Night, it will be strange to travel down the home stretch in relative silence.

It’s not clear these ads were having an impact, anyway. SBY, the wildly popular incumbent, has consistently polled well above 50 percent, in some cases as high as 70 percent. There remains a slim chance that Kalla and Megawati will earn enough votes to force SBY below the 50 percent mark and into a September runoff. But all signs point to SBY winning in a landslide, as his re-election campaign takes on more of the feel of a coronation.

Even though the election will not be competitive, Indonesians will vote at a very high rate. The turnout in three national elections from 1999 to 2004 was over 75 percent of eligible voters in each instance, including 93 percent in the first post-Suharto election of 1999. Compare that to the United States, where about 60 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot in last year’s closely contested presidential election. Social pressures to vote were very strong in Indonesia during the authoritarian Suharto era, even though election results were essentially meaningless since Suharto controlled who could run. Still, Indonesians developed the voting habit, and will go to the polls in droves on Wednesday.

Yet Indonesian voters’ motivations can prove elusive. More than a third of Danielle’s interview subjects said they did not know what “democracy” meant, only knowing it as a word in the name of SBY’s political party (“Partai Demokrat”). Voters identify much more closely with political personalities than parties, and parties do little to distinguish themselves ideologically through platforms or policies. In addition, the presence of patronage and “money politics” persists, factoring in voters’ decisions to an unverifiable extent. Everyone acknowledges that parties still buy votes with food and gifts in the post-Suharto era, but of course no one owns up to doing it themselves.

Even with Indonesians’ high rates of political participation, new forms of disenfranchisement have crept into the political process this year. Shockingly, an estimated 40 million voters were unable to vote April’s parliamentary election, mostly because the Central Election Commission (KPU) had not properly updated its electoral rolls. Indonesians don’t have to register, but the KPU was more lax about updating its lists this year than in previous elections. The commission has since run numerous advertisements exhorting Indonesians to check with local KPU offices to ensure that they haven’t been left off the list. It’s unlikely, however, that the voting rolls will be completely fixed before this week’s presidential vote.

In addition, the KPU has introduced some confusing procedural changes in 2009. For the first time in more than 50 years, Indonesians are supposed to mark their intent to vote by putting a check next to their candidate of choice rather than using a punch card ballot. Much confusion ensued in the April parliamentary election, with the KPU invalidating 14 percent of votes because of improper marks or other irregularities. (The average ballot invalidation rate in most elections is about 3 percent internationally.) With more than 1 in 10 voters disqualified on these kinds of technicalities, Florida’s butterfly ballot seems like the model of rectitude in comparison.

International election organizations like IFES have worked with the Indonesian officials to address this issue, encouraging the KPU to take a broader approach in honoring voters’ intent. They’ve gotten the KPU to accept X marks as well as the officially preferred check marks, for instance, but there’s still some disagreement about what counts as a vote. There are no signs that these invalidations have benefited one party or candidate, but they don’t inspire trust among Indonesians learning to live in a 10-year old democracy.

Still, Indonesia will have a proud moment on the international stage on Thursday morning, as wire services run stories confirming SBY’s victory in “Indonesia, a democracy with 240 million people and the world’s largest Muslim-majority country.” Then the world will mostly go on forgetting about Indonesia until something drastic happens.

With his broad mandate, SBY may be able to continue his progress toward making free public education available to all students, combating corruption at the heart of Indonesian politics and business, and spreading the benefits of economic growth to the broader Indonesian population. That is, of course, he stays true to his campaign motto of “Forward!”

Disrupting Corruption

Posted by John
North Sumatra’s Medan Airport provides the perfect view of the consequences of corruption among Indonesia’s political elite. Jockeying for position among hundreds of passengers around two antiquated baggage claim carousels, you’re left with the impression that Indonesia’s third-largest city of 2 million people deserves better.

For the past 10 years, North Sumatran political leaders have promised better. Money is budgeted for a new airport, but construction has stalled. Each year, local politicians dip into the funds in order to cover other costs, such as financing their own increasingly expensive campaigns. Meanwhile, over at the airport, cranes idle and planes squeeze into crowded terminals.

The story of Medan’s airport — false starts, good intentions and incomplete implementation — is repeated in other public works projects across the country. Part of the explanation lies in Indonesia’s public finances. Almost all Indonesians work in the informal economy and make very little money, which means they don’t pay taxes. Not paying taxes may sound appealing to Americans who grumble about the IRS each year as April 15 approaches, but it also severs citizens from their government.

With little understanding or stake in how the government funds its programs, most Indonesians have low expectations for what their government should provide. The government manages to meet those low expectations, especially since there is genuine ambiguity about who is responsible for basic services — schools, roads and trash pick-up — that Americans take for granted.

Meanwhile, businesses and wealthier citizens tapped to fund the Indonesian government’s coffers move their money offshore whenever they can. It’s often a matter of finding the right government official and meeting his price. Corruption has been a consistent feature of Indonesian politics in the country’s 64-year postcolonial history. Transparency International, an agency that tracks political corruption, placed Indonesia 126th in its 2008 Corruption Perception Index of 180 countries. That’s slightly behind Honduras and just ahead of Libya.

Two new features of Indonesian politics promise meaningful change, however. First, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (“SBY”) has had a far less accommodating attitude toward political corruption during his five years in office. The government’s anticorruption commission even prosecuted a member of SBY’s extended family accused of wrongdoing. Here in Medan, both the mayor and vice-mayor recently landed in jail for embezzlement.

SBY’s anticorruption consistently comes up in Danielle’s interviews with Indonesians and accounts for much of the president’s popularity. If he wins next week’s presidential election by as large a margin as projected, his meaningful accomplishments in anticorruption will be a major reason why. For some sense of the change that has occurred in the SBY era, Transparency International’s Corruption Index as recently as 2001 placed Indonesia ahead only of Nigeria, Uganda and Bangladesh.

The second change on corruption comes from the Islamic-inspired Justice and Welfare Party (PKS), which has served as a gadfly on this issue during the last decade. While I bemoaned the political confusion that has emerged with the proliferation of political parties in Indonesia, one real advantage has been that success by new parties like PKS shows that people are willing to listen to parties that take corruption seriously.

PKS has garnered Western press attention because of its links to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and its professed intention to implement sharia (Islamic law) in Indonesia. Less noticed, however, has been PKS’ fight against corruption, which accounts for much of its popularity. The party has become so successful at making corruption its signature issue that one sex worker Danielle interviewed as part of her research said she would vote for PKS — even though the party’s insistence on sharia means it would hardly look kindly on this woman’s profession.

In most Indonesian towns and villages, political parties still offer money, rice or other goods on the eve of an election in exchange for votes. Rather than receiving sustained public services from the government over time, this one-time bribe from political parties is often the extent of constituents’ interaction with the political system.

PKS’ influence is challenging this arrangement, however. During the April parliamentary election in Medan, several mosques gathered up religious clothes and prayer rugs that political parties had donated. They told parties to come retrieve these items — no one would be allowed to bribe their way into office using the mosques. Partly because of the attention PKS has brought to corruption, religious figures are unwilling to passively accept it.

PKS earned 7 percent of the vote in Indonesia’s parliamentary elections in April — not enough to allow them to run a presidential candidate, but enough to make them a potential kingmaker in Indonesia’s coalition politics. For this election, they’ve cast their lot with SBY’s Democratic Party. While the parties disagree about social issues and the role of Islam in Indonesian politics, they can find common ground on anti-corruption initiatives. SBY will probably have to find important places for PKS leaders in a second-term presidential cabinet.

It remains to be seen whether SBY’s Democratic Party and PKS — both relatively new creations — will have staying power in the Indonesian political landscape. PKS’ successes in fighting corruption mean they will remain relevant, if not a major party. And if the president’s party consolidates its legacy of anti-corruption, it will go a long way in helping it establish institutional permanence after SBY.

For all these successes in challenging the culture of corruption in Indonesia, however, nostalgia persists for Suharto, the president who set up one of the world’s most corrupt governments during his 33 years of rule. Suharto’s crony kingdom began to unravel when disgust with members of Suharto’s family and inner circle lining their pockets reached a breaking point during the Asian Financial Crisis of 1998.

Still, historical memory has been kind to Suharto. The poorest Indonesians have not all seen consistent gains during the SBY era. Several SBY supporters told Danielle in interviews that while they are happy with the current president, particularly his anti-corruption efforts, they would definitely vote for Suharto if the former president were on the ballot.

“Suharto may have been corrupt, but he left something for the rakyat kecil (little people),” one said.

Those “little people” still vote in large numbers in Indonesia. Absent meaningful changes in Indonesians’ economic circumstances, a populist who can convincingly pose as the people’s champion — regardless of his or her political platform — may galvanize a new political movement in the post-SBY era.