Seeking to guarantee equality in upcoming polls

by R. Kristiawan , Media Working Group for Election Program Science, Aesthetics, and Technology Foundation (SET), Jakarta

The upcoming elections will take place in the wake of the media's liberalization, since 1998. At first, this seems positive -- assuming that the media encourages democratization -- however, flaws in the new election system will likely ensure the political domination of those with big money.

Law 12/2003 on the electoral system stipulates in chapter 73, article 1, that the electronic and print media must give equal opportunities to electoral participants -- to publish the details of their campaign. Article 2 stipulates that electronic and print media should give electoral participants the equal opportunity to advertise.

Article 2, in particular, could potentially allow certain participants to dominate the media in terms of airtime or printed space. The phrase "equal opportunity" -- an ideal concept -- neglects the fact that airtime or printed space is not free of charge.

In general the mass media, particularly television, holds the policy -- not to differentiate between political and commercial advertising -- in short, they charge the same price regardless of content. Thus, there is no difference between the public service announcements of non government organizations, the advertisements of political parties or presidential campaigns, or soap commercials. Prime time broadcasting now costs between Rp 10 million and Rp 20 million for 30 seconds.

Thus, only "rich" political parties will be able to afford TV campaigns, (just a daydream for small parties). The campaign-war has begun. Some parties have already started to block airtime. If a big party blocks two hours of prime time -- assuming 30 seconds costs Rp 15 million -- they will need some Rp 3.6 billion.

There is obviously a wide gap between parties financially. A small party with 2 million members may not be able to raise Rp 100 million to hold a simple meeting.

Since the official end of the 32-year-old New Order regime in 1998, political and media liberalization progressed. Hundreds of parties suddenly participated in the 1999 elections. "Reform" was interpreted as unlimited political expression. But our political system seems unprepared, as indicated by larger-scale corruption (no longer limited to the higher ranks of bureaucracy) and the failure to overcome many of the country's problems.

For big parties, the 1999 elections were an important lesson, as to win the war they had to compete with many small parties. This never happened under the New Order. The victor could be predicted before the war started.

Large parties then drew up many strategies to maintain their position -- mainly in the regulation making process. This is evident from law no. 12/2003. For example, a convict can become a presidential candidate. Reform in this context just means that big parties can do anything they want.

Media liberalization can be traced back to the establishment of private television stations in the late 1980s. Now people can choose from 10 channels. The growth of private TV has also contributed to democratization; at least people are not limited to TVRI, (although the state-owned channel has formally become a public-owned media).

Ahead of the "democracy fiesta" of the 2004 elections, the major priority for parties has become their budget for advertising.

The implication is that the public will only be aware of the big parties with money. This is a "win-win" situation for big parties -- they made the rules of the game through their domination in the legislature.

If democracy means equal opportunity, there must be rules to guarantee equality in media expression. If it has been proved that capital handicaps some parties, we need to reassess how the political arena operates. Thus, it is very important to limit the advertising quota of parties. As Karl-Heinz Nassmacher wrote, "money strengthens political influence for those who have it, or those who distribute it". With no regulation, Indonesian democracy will be simply a matter of money.

(as posted in The Jakarta Post, Opinion and Editorial - September 13, 2003)