Jakarta Post, July 3, 2008
As the National Election gets closer and due to the low turnout in several local elections, politicians and political observers are increasingly concern with the increasing prevalence of Golput (non-voters). These concerns are for good reasons. First Golput can mean that the people do not like the choices available for them in the election, and that is why they choose not to participate in election. They perceive the incumbents, oppositions, and new comers as unqualified. The incumbents failed to perform when they were given a chance, the oppositions do not have the capability to perform better than the incumbents, and so do the newcomers. Second, Golput can mean that the people are disappointed with the failure of free and fair elections to improve their livelihood. For this reason, they do not see that the benefit of voting can outweigh the cost of coming to vote. They see voting as a waste of time and resource, and think that the time and resources can be use for other activities. Third, if the rate of Golput is high, it can mean that the elected government from the election will lack legitimacy to govern. Since many of the voters did not participate in election, the elected government does not represent the aspiration of the people. But should we really be concern with the possibility of high rate of Golput in the 2009 election? Yes for the above reasons, and no for two reasons. First, compares to other democracies voters turnouts in Indonesia’s national elections were relatively high, and will tend to stay high because of the existing party and electoral institutions in Indonesia. Indonesia can be considered more as a proportional representation than a plurality system. Proportional representation tends to have higher turnout than plurality system because in proportional representation, voters from smaller parties can still make their votes count. Indonesia has medium size voters per Member of Parliament relative to other democracies, and we know that the smaller the number of voters per Member of Parliament, voters will have more incentive to vote because their votes count more. With those institutional characteristics, Indonesia should be able to maintain significant voters turnout in its national election, especially during the presidential election considering Indonesia is a presidential system. The second reason, more importantly, on why we should not be too concern with Golput is because Golput has positive meanings and implications ones. Before I continue, I should underline that I am not encouraging people to become Golput, instead, I am suggesting that Golput might have positive meaning and implications behind all the criticism against it. Discouraging it might be as unhealthy as encouraging it. The positive sides of Golput In the case of Indonesia, Golput shows a positive development for the newly installed democracy. In Indonesia voting is a right, and people can choose to vote or not to vote. Not voting is not an act that is outside the corridor of democratic system, but instead one of the available choice in a democracy. Thus, despite not voting, the people still act within the rules of the game of democracy. Not voting can show several other things. If the voters decide not to vote because they are dissatisfied with the available choices, this shows that the voters become more critical towards the choices provided to them. They do not choose without calculation. They assess; despite who simple their assessment is; towards the available candidates, and they make judgment about the quality of the candidates. If the people do not vote because they no longer see the ability of the free and fair elections to improve their livelihood, Golput should be a motivation for Indonesian democrats to improve the system, and improve the government performance. High rate of Golput can diminish the legitimacy of the elected government. However, such implication can be one, among many others, of the key incentives for future political elites to increase their performance. Failure to do so will decrease their legitimacy even further. To conclude, despite showing dissatisfaction towards the political elites, and democratic performances, Golput is a good indicator that the voters in Indonesia have become more critical, and Golput can be a healthy incentive for the democrats to improve the democratic system and for the government to improve their performance.
