Institutionalization of Uncertainty
Ramlan Surbakti
Adam Przeworski formulated a minimalist definition of democracy as "a system of institutionalized uncertainty, or a regime where the rules are predictable, but not the electoral results" (1991).
This defines democracy as having predictable rules but unpredictable results. While Przeworski formulated this as a definition for “democracy”, which concerns more than its electoral system, other political scientists have viewed it as a definition for "democratic elections". A non-democratic election is marked by the opposite condition: the results are known long before an election is held, but the electoral procedures contain many legal uncertainties – or predictable results but unpredictable rules.
In term of institutionalization, a democratic election has two key features: legal certainty of the rules (so that all parties understand and follow the same process) and that the outcomes of the election are unknown in advance. Of course, the precise meaning of “procedure” is that which is regulated under a democratically formulated law that contains democratic principles as its substance. Therefore, efforts must be made to institutionalize the uncertainty of the electoral outcome in a democratic election.
Three important questions need answering: what is meant by the uncertainty of electoral outcomes and why is it important; what must be institutionalized to ensure the uncertainty of electoral results, and whether the uncertainty of electoral outcomes has been institutionalized in Indonesia.
What is meant by the uncertainty of electoral outcomes is that no party is permitted advance knowledge of the actual result of an election. No party is permitted to obtain prior knowledge of the result of an election through authority (power), fraud or manipulation, or expertise (scientific methods). During the New Order era, the results were known prior to holding an election, and not just which party would win, but also its percentage of votes and number of seats.
In the reform era, survey institutions calculate the possible outcomes of an election in terms of a candidate’s electability as well as through a quick count on a sample of votes from polling stations or through exit polls. However, no matter how sophisticated the method they use, no survey institution can accurately predict the electoral results. They are only able to estimate the percentage of votes at best, which many not differ widely from the official results that the General Elections Commission (KPU) announces, assuming that the KPU counts the ballots and announces its results with high integrity.
The principle of "no party may know in advance the results of an election" is vital to providing certainty for each participant/candidate in an election, that every effort has been made to determine an election’s result based on actual votes. It is critical that this principle is institutionalized to avoid any foregone conclusions (electoral outcomes that are set before an election takes place) and to ensure fairness for every stakeholder in a democratic election. If the victor is determined and known even before an election is held, the competition between the electoral participants would undoubtedly be unfair.
Free and fair elections
Several other procedures need to be institutionalized so that no party will be capable of predetermining the electoral results. First, voter registration is inclusive (no discrimination of any societal group). In terms of actual implementation, the KPU’s final voter list (DPT): (a) has a high degree of coverage (all citizens eligible to vote are registered on the DPT); and (b) is constantly updated, so the DPT comprises all eligible voters, adds all unregistered eligible voters by voting day, and eliminates all eligible voters who have died since registration.
The DPT is also (c) accurate, so citizens ineligible to vote are excluded, as are ghost/phantom voters, and that the personal details of eligible voters are recorded accurately; and (d) transparent in its registration/updating process, and all eligible voters are accorded access to review the temporary voter list (DPS) and contact the KPU officials if they are unregistered or if they find errors in the DPS.
This transparency ensures that all eligible voters are registered on the final voter list, whoever they may be and whatever their social, cultural, economic and political backgrounds. The purpose of providing both the temporary and final voter lists to each electoral participant is to ensure that the DPT is inclusive and to prevent any attempt, whether intentional or unintentional (negligence), to discriminate any societal groups.
Second, the KPU treats all prospective electoral participants/candidates the same in enforcing its electoral requirements proportionately and equally. It is the KPU’s duty to ensure that its officials enforce all rules and treat all potential participants/candidates equally and proportionately, and are apolitical in carrying out their tasks to prevent bias towards any candidate.
Third, ensuring free and fair elections for all electoral candidates. An election is not free if any candidate employs fearmongering or violence (intimidation, threats) as a tactic for garnering votes. Similarly, an election is undoubtedly unfair if any candidates attempt to buy votes using moneys and/or staple goods. An election not free and fair if any candidate disseminates lies, spreads hatred or uses ethnic, religious, racial, and intergroup (SARA) as a means of gaining votes.
If each candidate is given the same opportunity to conduct an electoral campaign using legally permitted methods, but not all candidates have the means to use resources (money and facilities), then only those candidates who have both opportunity and means will be known to voters. If incumbents in executive or legislative positions use public resources (seat of office) to gain votes, or if they do not disclose their main campaign sources/contributors and the amount of each contribution to voters at least several days before voting day, then the election is undoubtedly unfair. Finally, an election is also unfair if print and electronic media cover, report or broadcast news on campaign in favor of a particular candidate.
An election that is not free and fair advantages certain candidates against others by making them better known to voters. The ban on survey institutions from disseminating their results on a candidate’s electability a few days before voting day is part of these efforts to prevent the predetermination of an election’s victors.
And finally, the balloting and vote counting processes are based on the principles of a democratic election (direct, general, free, confidential, honest, fair and regular) and on the principle of integrity (honest, accurate, transparent and accountable). The instrument used to identify the eligibility of a citizen at a polling station is not a voter notification letter, but an electronic ID or other form of personal identification as set in the KPU’s laws and regulations. A voter notification letter could be used to discriminate certain citizens, but a personal identity card is proof of voter eligibility.
Supervision in the field by officials of the Elections Supervisory Body (Bawaslu) at polling stations and in villages/subdistricts, observers from each electoral participant, election monitoring institutions and volunteer groups that are permitted to record and disseminate the results at polling stations (C1), is intended to guarantee that the KPU counts, recapitulates and incorporates each voter’s ballot in electoral result.
If the balloting and vote counting processes, as well as the vote recapitulation, are conducted in accordance with the principles of a democratic election and integrity, no one will able to predetermine or gain prior knowledge of the electoral outcomes before the KPU’s official announcement.
Voter participation
Of these four things, it appears that the third factor (free and fair elections) has not yet reached an adequate level, despite some improvements. About 70 percent of the Indonesian population is eligible to vote. Therefore, the coverage of the final voter list for the 2019 general election is relatively high, because it covers 74 percent of the population (over 192 million of the 260 million population). What remains a problem is the percentage of registered voters that actually vote, which reached 75 percent in the 2014 election.
No systematic efforts have been made to facilitate the six voter groups with special needs. One improvement to ensure a free and fair election is for the state to facilitate their needs (the KPU funded by the state budget).
In the 2019 election, the KPU has facilitated each electoral participant so that they may (a) publicly display campaign advertisements in electronic and print media; (b) produce and install campaign paraphernalia; and (c) disseminate their vision, mission and programs.
Two aspects have not been implemented to guarantee free and fair competition among electoral participants. One, the regulation on the receipt, expenditure, transparency and accountability of campaign funds remains more for show rather than actual rules that are implemented and enforced effectively.
Two, vote buying appears to be a growing practice among candidates and their campaign teams. There has been no systematic effort to prevent vote buying or to enforce the ban on vote buying. Whether the 2019 election will be deemed as fair or not will be determined by the effectiveness of efforts to prevent vote buying and to enforce the ban on vote buying.
An unfair election will leave the impression that only those participants/candidates with large funds will gain seats in the general election. (Ramlan Surbakti, Professor of Comparative Politics, Airlangga University, Surabaya; member, Indonesian Academy of Sciences)
