A Leap Forward on the Equator: Indonesia's 9 April Elections

By Adhy Aman

New Voting method

When people of the Indonesian archipelago went to the polls last month (9 April 2009) it was a very different experience from usual. Indonesians are accustomed to general elections, having been going to the polls every five years since 1971. But this time the traditional voting method of punching holes on ballots using nails had been replaced by something new. They elected thousands of representatives to legislatures at national, provincial and district levels by marking appropriate places on the ballots with a red ballpoint pen.

Why the change? It is regarded by many as a leap forward into the modern era. Many in the Indonesian elites felt this would bring the country into line with most other nations. Some also saw punching and usage of nails as symbols of violence.

“Mencontreng”, which means placing a tick (V), is the new call sign for the act of voting, replacing the ever popular “mencoblos”, the Bahasa Indonesia word for punching a hole. The word mencoblos has internalised so much that people, including myself, still use it, even though we are no longer punching. It truly is a hard habit to break.

But is it really hard to break? Prior to polling day, it was anticipated that many voters would still be punching. So the Electoral Commission allowed votes that were punched to be deemed valid. On Election Day however, from the few polling stations visited around Jakarta, hardly any punched ballots were found. It seems that the absence of nails and the presence of a pen in the voting booths were clear enough signs.

Based on the election results announced on 9 May, 14.4% of the 121 million votes casted were invalid. This is a 63.4% increase compared to the 2004 legislative elections. Electoral system changes usually result in a surge of invalid votes; Indonesia’s neighbour, Australia, experienced a threefold increase in invalids when it had a system change in 1984. The rate obviously depends on the type and magnitude of the change. Nevertheless, as the ACE Project says, “[a] new system can […] be a leap into the unknown…”, judging from the relative peace and security after Election Day, it appears Indonesia has leapt forward.

“Quick Count” Fest

Another interesting phenomenon during the Indonesian legislative elections was the abundance of nation-wide parallel vote tabulations (PVT) that were organized by various survey and research institutions, supported by some media corporations. Although PVTs, or “quick counts” as they are more popularly known in Indonesia, have been in place since 1999, they have never attracted this much attention. The implementers of these PVTs would start “training” the public through a series of surveys that started up to a year before Election Day. These surveys tried to predict the outcome of the elections and to show the level of support for certain political figures at a given moment in time. The media, both print and electronic, with whom some of the implementers were associated, also participated vigorously in promoting the surveys and preparing the public for a showdown on the eve of Election Day.

Even though PVTs have been around a while, the Indonesian public had yet to be convinced of their accuracy and usefulness. Voices of concern revolved around the neutrality of the implementers and the number of samples used (the average was around two thousand polling stations). The implementers were quite diverse in terms of their nature and affiliations. Like colours on a spinning wheel, a mixture of them may have resulted in white. Despite attempts to explain the methodology, it was unclear how well the general public actually understood it. Gauging their reaction once the results are out may be one method of assessment.

Around 9 April, the PVT implementers announced their results close to each other. Four PVT results were widely reported by all major newspapers, television channels and radios. The similarities amongst their results were astounding. The variation was within 1% of each others’ numbers, with insignificant anomalies. It was felt difficult by many who understood how PVT works to deny the outcome. Initially some political parties, especially those not faring very well based on the PVTs, voiced their doubts. Lay people also had doubts. However there was not widespread disbelief. A majority of political parties for example did not protest about the results.

Peace was maintained throughout the counting process with minimal disruptions. When the final count results were announced by the Electoral Commission on 9 May, it was evident that the official results fell within 1% of all PVTs (Source: www.detik.com). This really brought the risk of violent conflict and disturbances down closer to nil. Not only were the PVTs able to promote peace during the fragile times between Election Day and the announcement of official results, they were also able to demonstrate to the public that the official count was not violated. Electoral contests are now being heard by the Constitutional Court. Nevertheless, Indonesia has again leapt forward leaving behind the horrors of widespread denouncements of the results in the first post-authoritarian regime elections in 1999.

Adhy Aman (Indonesia) is Programme Officer at International IDEA focusing on electoral processes. He was in Indonesia during the 9 April elections.