One of the most striking aspects of the Indonesian election system was its simplicity. The process, while thorough and well-organized, lacked the complexity and bureaucracy that often bog down elections in other countries, including my own. The Indonesian electoral system was a study in how efficiency can be achieved through clear guidelines, simplicity, and a focus on the basics.
From the moment we arrived in Indonesia, it was clear that their system, though not without challenges, was designed with the intent of ensuring a smooth electoral process. The voting system itself was relatively straightforward: each voter was given a paper ballot with the logos of the political parties, and all they needed to do was mark an “X” next to the party they wished to vote for. The indelible ink was applied to ensure there was no possibility of double voting, and the ballots were placed in large transparent boxes, making it clear that the process was open and transparent.
The simplicity of the system also extended to the polling stations. While some countries, including the Philippines, have long and complex processes involving multiple types of ballots and electronic voting machines, the Indonesian system was much more basic. There were no electronic voting systems, no touch-screen panels or complicated machines. The ballots were paper, and the vote was counted by hand.
At first glance, one might think this would lead to inefficiencies or errors, but it was the opposite. The use of paper ballots allowed for a direct connection between the voter and the voting process. Each ballot was counted manually at the precinct level, and the results were posted publicly, ensuring transparency at every stage. The entire process was also incredibly fast—by early afternoon on election day, the ballots had already been counted and preliminary results began to emerge. In a world where many countries still struggle with delayed results, this was a remarkable achievement.
One of the most striking aspects of the Indonesian system was the role of the polling station committees, or KPPS. These local committees were composed of ordinary citizens who volunteered to oversee the election process. They were tasked with ensuring that the election was conducted fairly, that voters were registered, and that the ballots were counted accurately. These committees, often made up of people with little formal election training, demonstrated an incredible level of dedication and responsibility.
What made the system even more remarkable was the level of public participation. Indonesians took pride in the election process, not just as a civic duty, but as a way to shape the future of their country. This was not a passive act; it was a deeply engaged and involved experience. From the moment voters entered the polling station, they were treated with respect, and the process was designed to minimize any confusion or disruption.
Even the small details contributed to the overall efficiency of the system. For example, the strict control over campaign materials ensured that the day before the election was a peaceful one. Election posters and propaganda were all taken down as soon as the official campaign period ended. There was no clutter on the streets, no overwhelming signs plastered on every available surface. This allowed the focus to remain on the importance of the election itself, rather than being distracted by last-minute campaigning.
The Indonesians also exhibited remarkable discipline when it came to election-day behavior. Voters queued patiently outside the polling stations, and there was no sign of impatience or disorder. In the Philippines, where long lines and chaos often characterize election day, this calm and orderly conduct was an eye-opener. It reflected the high level of civic pride and respect for the process that the Indonesians had cultivated in their transition to democracy.
Perhaps the most impressive element of the Indonesian electoral system was its transparency. In contrast to many other elections around the world, where fraud and manipulation are common, the Indonesian election was marked by an unwavering commitment to transparency at every level. This was evident in the presence of international observers like us, as well as the clear and open methods of vote counting. Each stage of the process—from the casting of the ballot to the tallying of votes—was done in the open, with party representatives (saksi) and observers present to ensure fairness.
The simple yet effective approach to Indonesia’s electoral system was a testament to the country’s commitment to making their democracy work. It was a lesson for all of us—sometimes, the most effective systems are not the most complex ones. By focusing on transparency, simplicity, and public participation, Indonesia was able to conduct an election that was not only free and fair, but also one that the people could genuinely trust.
No comments:
Post a Comment