In defense of nonvotersHans David Tampubolon ; A journalist at The Jakarta Post |
JAKARTA POST, 28 Februari 2014
| Indonesians love to talk about politics. Discussions on the country’s power struggle can occur anywhere with anyone, including in an elevator with an office boy. I had a chat with an office boy in an elevator recently and I asked him who he was going to vote for in the 2014 presidential election. To my surprise, he responded that he would not choose anyone because they would be corrupt as soon as they became president. The simple chat shows me that a modest office boy without a university education actually understands real politics in Indonesia better than the educated, growing middle class. In recent months, a large number of the middle class have been engaged in campaigning, urging those potential abstainers to exercise their right to vote. Their campaign is fueled by the opinion that nonvoters prevent “good people” from gaining public posts, thus, making Indonesia’s long-standing dream of becoming a highly civilized society that much harder to achieve. Such an argument, however, is wrong on a number of levels. First of all, there is no direct correlation between the advancement of a society and high voter turnout. Advanced democracies, such as the United States, in fact, have recorded a lower voter turnout than Indonesia. An advanced society should actually be able to survive on its own with little intervention from the state, making the argument of whether to vote or not irrelevant. In an extreme case, society should be able to maintain order even without a government in place. Belgium is a perfect example of this as it managed to live and prosper without an official government establishment from 2007 to 2011. The main goal of any democratic nation is to achieve an advanced society, which is civilized and, most importantly, independent to continue grow. The government and elections are merely tools to achieve that goal, and optional ones at that. Second, pro-voting campaigners fail to see that corruption plagues the elites because those involved in politics are themselves corrupt. There is not one political party in the House of Representatives that is not free from corruption; and sadly, these parties are the only instrument strong enough to endorse legislative and presidential candidates. How can anyone expect a severely corrupt system to produce clean leaders with integrity? Pro-voting campaigners often argue that voting for the lesser of all evils is better than not voting at all. This argument is both naive and misleading. First of all, the lesser of all evils is still an evil. Second, once that lesser of all evils becomes president, he or she can become the most evil of all. The history of the reform era clearly shows that democracy has been hijacked by corrupt-minded politicians. No major changes have been seen in Indonesia’s corruption perception index, even after three presidencies. Political parties are perceived to be the most corrupt institution. The current administration of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono took the fight against corruption as its campaign tagline, but by the end of his second term his Democratic Party is mired in corruption cases: an ironic exit for his term. With the historical context and the fact that Indonesia’s current system paves the way for corrupt and soon-to-be corrupt leaders, it makes sense that many are reluctant or refuse to vote because they do not want to mandate corrupt parties and leaders. To lure back nonvoters, provoting campaigners’ campaigns should focus on how to reform the severely tarnished Indonesian society and mind-set so that it can produce good leaders and representatives rather than blaming nonvoters, who are only practicing their political and human right to free will. The answer to how to reach an advanced and civilized society does not lie in the hands of legislative or presidential candidates and political parties. It lies within society itself. ● |
Post a Comment