- “Leadership is a relationship between those who aspire to lead and those who choose to follow”
- “Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal”
- “Leadership is the influencing process of leaders and followers to achieve organizational objectives through changes”
- “Leadership is the behavior of an individual… directing the activities of a group toward a shared goal”
- “Leadership is the influential increment over and above mechanical compliance with the routine directives of the organization”
- “Leadership is the process of incluencing the activities of an organized group toward goal achievement”
- “Leadership is a process of giving purpose (meaningful direction) to collective effort, and causing willing effort to be expended to achieve purpose”
- “Leadership is the ability to step outside the culture… to start evolutionary change processes that are more adaptive”
- “Leadership is the process of making sense of waht people are doing together so that people will understand and be committed”
- “Leadership is about articulating visions, embodying values, and creating the environment within which things can be accomplished”
- “Leadership is the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organization…”
- “Leadership is the ability of developing and communicating a vision to a group of people that will make that vision true”
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Leadership
Sri Sultan Hamengkubuwono X
Some people enthusiastically welcome Hamengkubuwono's bid for the presidency on the grounds that he has the capacity to strengthen the unity of the country which is currently under threat from primordialism and sectarianism. The Yogyakarta governor deliberately chose Youth Pledge Day (Oct. 28) as the crucial moment for announcing his nomination in order to show his nationalistic credentials. Other people have a different view and have developed a critical assessment of his real chance to succeed in 2009.
There is no doubt that Sultan, along with Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid, Megawati Soekarnoputri and Amien Rais played pitoval roles in forcing Soeharto to step down in May 1998. Among the four, however it is only Sultan who has not had an opportunity to hold a state position. Amien served in the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) from Oct. 1999 to Sept. 2004. Gus Dur was president from Oct. 1999 to July 2001, before being replaced by Vice President Megawati. Megawati served as president until Sept. 2004.
Sultan has been active in promoting democratization in Indonesia. Unlike many other traditional monarchs, he does not want to perpetuate any kind of feudalistic privilege that normally goes with the royal status of Javanese kings. However, to succeed in the presidential election one needs more than just democratic or nationalistic credentials.
There are various factors which will determine the success of any presidential candidate in 2009. The question is: Can we make an objective assessment of Sultan's sources of strength and his weaknesses so that he or his supporters might have a reasonable judgment before entering the battlefield?
Most, if not all, presidential candidates capitalize on their political parties as their political machine to mobilize popular support. As far as Sultan is concerned, it is not yet clear which political party or coalition he will use in order to be legally eligible as a presidential candidate. The final answer to this question will be fixed after the 2009 legislative election.
For the time being, we can only guess his strategy on the basis of existing conditions. So far the Golkar Party, to which Sultan is affiliated, has not nominated any presidential candidate. Some factions and regional branches of Golkar have expressed their intention to nominate Sultan for presidency in 2009.
As chairman of Golkar, Vice President Jusuf Kalla has allowed any member of his party -- including Sultan -- to run for president in the upcoming election. However, under Jusuf Kalla's chairmanship it is very unlikely that Golkar will nominate Sultan as its presidential candidate.
There is a high probability that if Golkar wins enough popular votes in the legislative election it will nominate Jusuf Kalla as its only presidential candidate. Otherwise, Jusuf Kalla will maintain the status quo by which he would run with incumbent President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono as candidate for vice president. Thus, in terms of the use of a political party as the basis of political power, Sultan's nomination remains problematic to say the least. He cannot avoid the constraint stemming from an internal competition within Golkar which is going to be quite tough given the fact that there are some factions which are not satisfied with Jusuf Kalla's ambitious leadership.
Despite the uncertainty of the political support that Sultan could get from Golkar, his self-confidence in running for presidency in 2009 is not without foundation. When Sultan held a great meeting (pisowanan agung) in Yogyakarta he invited traditional kings from all parts of the archipelago. The meeting was also attended by politicians, artists and academicians who pledged to mobilize popular support for Sultan's nomination.
It remains to be seen how effective his organization of political support will be in 2009. If he indeed relies on the traditional influence of the country's nobility he should be prepared to face the worst scenario. Why?
In this globalized world the Indonesian people are increasingly in favor of those with achieved status and cynically look down on those with ascribed status. In other words, because of modernization our society has become increasingly merit-based in their social and political attitudes.
On top of that, some of the noble families have damaged their royal reputations through various kinds of indecent behavior. Internal conflicts triggered by scrambles for royal properties are also widespread. If that is the case then it is very unlikely that they will be successful in winning the sympathy of the public.
There is no doubt that Sultan, along with Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid, Megawati Soekarnoputri and Amien Rais played pitoval roles in forcing Soeharto to step down in May 1998. Among the four, however it is only Sultan who has not had an opportunity to hold a state position. Amien served in the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) from Oct. 1999 to Sept. 2004. Gus Dur was president from Oct. 1999 to July 2001, before being replaced by Vice President Megawati. Megawati served as president until Sept. 2004.
Sultan has been active in promoting democratization in Indonesia. Unlike many other traditional monarchs, he does not want to perpetuate any kind of feudalistic privilege that normally goes with the royal status of Javanese kings. However, to succeed in the presidential election one needs more than just democratic or nationalistic credentials.
There are various factors which will determine the success of any presidential candidate in 2009. The question is: Can we make an objective assessment of Sultan's sources of strength and his weaknesses so that he or his supporters might have a reasonable judgment before entering the battlefield?
Most, if not all, presidential candidates capitalize on their political parties as their political machine to mobilize popular support. As far as Sultan is concerned, it is not yet clear which political party or coalition he will use in order to be legally eligible as a presidential candidate. The final answer to this question will be fixed after the 2009 legislative election.
For the time being, we can only guess his strategy on the basis of existing conditions. So far the Golkar Party, to which Sultan is affiliated, has not nominated any presidential candidate. Some factions and regional branches of Golkar have expressed their intention to nominate Sultan for presidency in 2009.
As chairman of Golkar, Vice President Jusuf Kalla has allowed any member of his party -- including Sultan -- to run for president in the upcoming election. However, under Jusuf Kalla's chairmanship it is very unlikely that Golkar will nominate Sultan as its presidential candidate.
There is a high probability that if Golkar wins enough popular votes in the legislative election it will nominate Jusuf Kalla as its only presidential candidate. Otherwise, Jusuf Kalla will maintain the status quo by which he would run with incumbent President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono as candidate for vice president. Thus, in terms of the use of a political party as the basis of political power, Sultan's nomination remains problematic to say the least. He cannot avoid the constraint stemming from an internal competition within Golkar which is going to be quite tough given the fact that there are some factions which are not satisfied with Jusuf Kalla's ambitious leadership.
Despite the uncertainty of the political support that Sultan could get from Golkar, his self-confidence in running for presidency in 2009 is not without foundation. When Sultan held a great meeting (pisowanan agung) in Yogyakarta he invited traditional kings from all parts of the archipelago. The meeting was also attended by politicians, artists and academicians who pledged to mobilize popular support for Sultan's nomination.
It remains to be seen how effective his organization of political support will be in 2009. If he indeed relies on the traditional influence of the country's nobility he should be prepared to face the worst scenario. Why?
In this globalized world the Indonesian people are increasingly in favor of those with achieved status and cynically look down on those with ascribed status. In other words, because of modernization our society has become increasingly merit-based in their social and political attitudes.
On top of that, some of the noble families have damaged their royal reputations through various kinds of indecent behavior. Internal conflicts triggered by scrambles for royal properties are also widespread. If that is the case then it is very unlikely that they will be successful in winning the sympathy of the public.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Political Leadership
There has been a great deal of change in Indonesia since 1998, when the long dictatorship of Suharto was overthrown. The transition to democracy has been fragile and slow. But it has allowed for a fairly strong and pragmatic leader to emerge in the person of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, a man of experience.
Susilo on Sept. 20, 2004, was the first president to be directly elected by the people in the history of Indonesia. He defeated the incumbent President Megawati (Mega) Sukarnoputri, a housewife turned politician who had lost much of her popularity since early 2004 (see her background and that of her predecessors in Vol. 60, Gas Market Trends No. 12).
A retired four-star army general, Susilo had vowed to improve the country's socio-economic conditions, boost security and maintain the unity and long-term stability of Indonesia, and step up the fight against Islamic militancy.
With Indonesia having more Muslims than any other country, Susilo's political leadership has committed itself to upholding the country's secular political values and institutions. The leadership is relying on two segments of Indonesian society critical to its efforts to maintain a steady course: the military and the majority of moderate Muslims.
The military has a strong secular and nationalist tradition. It can be counted on to oppose any bid for power by Islamists. The political leadership is careful not to let public order deteriorate to an extent that might tempt the military to step back into political spheres which it vacated after Suharto's downfall.
The moderate Muslims are the strongest barrier to radical and anti-democratic tendencies, as well as the most effective potential allies of the US in the war on terrorism. How the US goes about establishing a democratic foundation in the Middle East will have a profound impact on public opinion in Indonesia and throughout the Muslim World. In this respect the US role in Iraq and the US-led war against global terrorism - now focusing on Osama bin Laden's Neo-Salafi/Wahhabi network al-Qaeda and its affiliates - are important where the Indonesian political leadership is concerned.
If the US can make a credible case that it is a reliable ally of Muslim democrats anywhere, it will have gone a long way towards putting ties with the Islamic World on a more enduring basis. This would strengthen the local as well as regional positions of Jakarta's political leadership - with emphasis on Indonesia's geo-strategic status as the biggest archipelago in the world and the most vital link between the Middle East and the Far East.
Indonesia's geo-strategic position is of particular importance to the US as well. The Strait of Malacca, between Indonesia's island of Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula, has been the scene of attacks on passing oil and gas tankers by political groups, notably including the Free Aceh Movement and Jemaah Islamiyah (JI). Both are Indonesian and dangerous, with JI affiliated to al-Qaeda, and the Aceh group consisting of separatists. If the latter manage to secede, the danger of Indonesian dismemberment will be come extremely serious in view of so many separatist movements in this archipelago. There is always the danger of a JI-Qaeda operation blocking energy traffic along the Strait of Malacca.
Indonesia faces territorial disputes, mainly a potentially major problem with China, including one with Malaysia over petroleum-rich offshore areas. The one with Malaysia is being negotiated peacefully in the hope the two states would have a diplomatic settlement.
In view of these and other dangers, the political leadership in Jakarta needs to modernise its armed forces as well as bolster its navy on a large scale. President Susilo is hoping a strategic alliance with the US could help boost Indonesia's military capabilities on the scale required.
Jakarta's revival of the strategic alliance between the US and Indonesia, with the Bush administration Bush eager to maintain military links largely to help combat terrorism, in 2005 featured US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's reinstatement of US military training assistance for Indonesia, an important step towards restoring full military ties.
Yudhoyono and Megawati: Close on Polls
Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and former President Megawati Sukarnoputri likely face a neck-and-neck race in next year's presidential election, Kyodo news agency reported, quoted a recent national survey.
According to the nationwide survey with 2,000 respondents, 28 percent of respondents would vote for Megawati while 27 percent support Yudhoyono.
The survey was conducted by market research and polling firm Taylor Nelson Sofres for the National Leadership Center, a Jakarta-based nongovernmental organisation focusing on leadership development.
The latest survey, conducted July 18 to 29 in 30 of the country's 33 provinces, confirms the results of other polls indicating a sharp decline in Yudhoyono's popularity since his government raised fuel prices in late May.
"Voters expressed serious concerns about the financial situation in the country, with most voters saying their family finances have gotten worse in the past year," NLC President Director Taufik Bahaudin told a press conference.
The survey also showed an increase in popularity for Prabowo Subianto, former son-in-law of former President Suharto.
In the survey, Subianto rose to third place with 11 percent of respondents saying they would vote for him. Earlier, other polls also showed increases in his popularity from less than 1 percent in January to between 4 and 8 percent in June.
According to the nationwide survey with 2,000 respondents, 28 percent of respondents would vote for Megawati while 27 percent support Yudhoyono.
The survey was conducted by market research and polling firm Taylor Nelson Sofres for the National Leadership Center, a Jakarta-based nongovernmental organisation focusing on leadership development.
The latest survey, conducted July 18 to 29 in 30 of the country's 33 provinces, confirms the results of other polls indicating a sharp decline in Yudhoyono's popularity since his government raised fuel prices in late May.
"Voters expressed serious concerns about the financial situation in the country, with most voters saying their family finances have gotten worse in the past year," NLC President Director Taufik Bahaudin told a press conference.
The survey also showed an increase in popularity for Prabowo Subianto, former son-in-law of former President Suharto.
In the survey, Subianto rose to third place with 11 percent of respondents saying they would vote for him. Earlier, other polls also showed increases in his popularity from less than 1 percent in January to between 4 and 8 percent in June.
Election Monitoring Organisation
Since the General Election of 1999, elections in Indonesia have been characterized by the presence of election monitoring teams, both national and also international eletion monitoring committees. They have become parts of the formal structure within the election system in Indonesia. These monitoring committee members are crucial for the monitoring of ongoing election processes.
The presence of monitoring organisations in Indonesia is undoubtedly due to the concern for irregularities being perpetuated during elections. This concern is justifiable considering the many irregularities that took place during the six elections in the New Order era. Participating political parties in those elections also seemed to ignore the fraud and irregularities that took place right before their eyes. The spirit to call for the presence of an Election Monitoring Committee emerged in 1997 during the waning rule of the New Order regime. The idea came to the surface following the bold step by those who questioned the validity of the implementation of elections in Indonesia. A number of activists later formed an election monitoring body, which is known as the Independent Election Monitoring Committee (Komite Independen Pemantau Pemilu/KIPP).
Despite KIPP’s relentless efforts to recruit volunteers from across Indonesia, it has not been easy for them to monitor the implementation of elections in Indonesia. Some training activities on election monitoring in a number of regions have even been arbitrarily dismissed or prevented from being implemented. KIPP become the symbol of resentment of activists against the General Election of 1997, which they considered
unfair and corrupt.
It was only after the reformation era that the presence of an election monitoring committee was considered a crucial requirement for a clean election. It came as no surprise that nearing the 1999 Election, a number of election monitoring bodies were formed. The government can no longer ignore their presence, for instance the presence of the KIPP before the 1997 Election. Their presence has now been formalized by means of the Election Law No. 12 year 2003 and the General Election Law No. 10 year 2008.
Apart from KIPP, there are a number of organisations committed to building a network of election monitoring in Indonesia, such as the Forum Rektor dan Jaringan Perguruan Tinggi Pemantau Pemilu (University Network for Free and Fair Election/UNFREL). Their presence is supported by other monitoring organisations such as the Alliance for Independent Election Monitoring (Aliansi Pemantau Pemilu Independen/APPI), the Indonesian Society Network for Election Monitoring (Jaringan Masyarakat Pemantau Pemilu Indonesia/JAMPPI) established by the Indonesia’s Islamic Student Association
(Perhimpunan Mahasiswa Islam Indonesia/PMII), and the Commission for General Election Monitoring (Komisi Pemantauan Pemilihan Umum) the Development of Democratic Life (Pengembangan Kehidupan Demokrasi/KP3KD), and even foreign election monitoring organisations.
The success of the 1999 Election in Indonesia which involved the participation of many monitoring bodies strengthened the call for the need for the presence of monitoring bodies. The General Election Law No. 12 year 2003 has confirmed the role of such Election Monitoring bodies. The Law stipulates that election monitoring organisations should register their presence and obtain accreditation from the Commission for General Elections (Komisi Pemilihan Umum/KPU) (Article 135 paragraph (3) and (4)). In general, the procedures for obtaining the accreditation as a monitoring body from KPU are easy. This explains the presence of 74 election monitoring bodies across Indonesia during the 2004 Election.
Aceh is one of the most attention-drawing regions for monitoring during election. The attention of the monitoring organisations toward the dynamic of democractic processes in Aceh has started to emerge since the Election of Regional Head (Pilkada) in 2006. During the Pilkada, more than 10 local, national and international monitoring organisations were present. Among the most prominent was the monitoring team of the European Union, which deployed 400 personnel. They distributed themselves across Aceh two weeks before the election day. These foreign monitoring personnel monitored the processes of the Pilkada in Aceh for two and a half months.
The presence of election monitoring organisations in Aceh during the past Pilkada was recognised by the law by way of Article 64 paragraph (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Law (Undang-Undang/UU) No. 11 year 2006 on Governing Aceh. To be able to carry out monitoring of an election, they have to meet the standards of accreditation set by the KIP of Aceh. Similar to the General Election five years ago and the 2006 Pilkada, the government also recognizes the presence of local, national and international election monitoring organisations during the 2009 Election. The recognition has been stipulated in Law No. 10 year 2008 on General Elections. The monitoring bodies are free to monitor the implementation of general elections in 2009 in all parts of Indonesia, including Aceh. The Law has 60 articles to govern the presence of election monitoring organisations. The Law may have become the most comprehensive legislation that governs the procedures of general elections in Indonesia, among others through its provisions on the requirements of election monitoring organisations, procedures of monitoring, foreign monitoring organisations (individuals), coverage of regions and the limitations of monitoring organisations/individuals. Article 231 of the Law specifically governs the regulations for the 2009 election, stipulating that “Election Monitoring organisations can be domestic non-government organisations and communities for election monitoring, domestic legal entities, foreign election monitoring organisation, and representatives of friendly countries in Indonesia.” The provision clearly shows a spirit for making a clean and transparent election in 2009.
To be recognised as a monitoring organisation, the organisation must be accredited by the Commission for General Elections (Komisi Pemilihan Umum/KPU). For Aceh, accreditation can be obtained from the Election Independent Commission (Komisi Independen Pemilu/KIP) of Aceh. The procedures for accreditation are contained in Article 232 of the Law No. 10 year 2008, which among others stipulating the following requirements to be recognized as an election monitoring organisation: independent, having a clear source of funding, and accredited by the national, provincial or
district/city KPU in line with their coverage areas.
Paragraph (2) of Article 232 stipulates that foreign election monitoring organisations should have prior experience of election monitoring in other countries, which should be supported by the statement of the respective monitoring organisation or the country of monitoring experience. Monitoring organisations should also be equipped with visas to become part of the Election Monitoring Body from the Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia abroad and adhere to the monitoring procedures as governed by the legislation.
Furthermore Article 233 confirms that Election Monitoring Organisations should submit the application to carry out election monitoring by filling in the registration form provided by the national, provincial, or district/city KPU. The national, provincial or district/city KPU will later have to examine the submission of administrative requirements by the respective election monitoring organisation. Organisations that meet the criteria will be marked as a registered monitoring organisation and provided with an accreditation certificate. Foreign monitoring organisations should obtain a
recommendation from the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
KPU can only issue the permit for monitoring of certain coverage areas to monitoring organisations who have submitted applications. If the organisations are to monitor down to the regional level, they have to obtain accreditation from the provincial and district/city KPU. For Aceh, the provincial KIP and district/city KIP are responsible for this.
Organisations granted with accreditation to take part in election monitoring will have certain privileges. Article 236 of the General Election Law says that election monitoring teams have the rights for legal protection and security from the Government of Indonesia; to observe and collect information on implementation processes of the election; to monitor the voting processes and the vote counts from the voting booth (Tempat Pemungutan Suara); to have access to information from KPU, and the provincial and district/city KPU; and make use of the equipment to document the voting activities as long as it is in line with the implementation of the election. Foreign diplomats serving in the monitoring election have the right to diplomatic impunity during their task as election monitors.
KPU will later issue a code of conduct related to the monitoring of the 2009 Election. This code of conduct should be adhered to by all monitoring organisations in Indonesia. Drawing from the experience during the 2004 Election, the code of conduct will contain the responsibility of members of monitoring teams to wear identity card when conducting all activities, to report the total number and presence of election monitoring personnel, to respect the position, task and authority of the Election Committee and to respect the local customs and culture.
Article 238 of the Law contains prohibitions in relation to the members of election monitoring teams, among others prohibition to put on uniform, colour or other attributes that may give the impression of their support of a specific election participant. In addition, the article governs that monitoring can only be conducted outside of the voting booth (TPS). Members of monitoring teams who violate the provisions can be revoked from their status and rights to monitor elections by the KPU or KIP of Aceh.
In collaboration with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Law and Human Rights will be responsible in handling all violations by foreign members of election monitoring teams by revoking the status and the rights of the team members. Aceh will surely be a top target for the national and foreign monitoring teams because the election in this region will be a unique one due to the participation of local political parties for the first time.
Until end the of September 2008, however, no election monitoring organisation has registered at the KIP of Aceh. The Vice Chair Person of the KIP of Aceh, Ilham Syahputra, estimates that election monitoring organisations will only start to register later during the distribution of logistic supplies, open campaigning, and just before the voting day. “The KPU will issue additional provisions for monitoring organisations. This will in turn require applicant organisations to wait for the regulations before they can register themselves,” says Ilham.
The presence of monitoring organisations in Indonesia is undoubtedly due to the concern for irregularities being perpetuated during elections. This concern is justifiable considering the many irregularities that took place during the six elections in the New Order era. Participating political parties in those elections also seemed to ignore the fraud and irregularities that took place right before their eyes. The spirit to call for the presence of an Election Monitoring Committee emerged in 1997 during the waning rule of the New Order regime. The idea came to the surface following the bold step by those who questioned the validity of the implementation of elections in Indonesia. A number of activists later formed an election monitoring body, which is known as the Independent Election Monitoring Committee (Komite Independen Pemantau Pemilu/KIPP).
Despite KIPP’s relentless efforts to recruit volunteers from across Indonesia, it has not been easy for them to monitor the implementation of elections in Indonesia. Some training activities on election monitoring in a number of regions have even been arbitrarily dismissed or prevented from being implemented. KIPP become the symbol of resentment of activists against the General Election of 1997, which they considered
unfair and corrupt.
It was only after the reformation era that the presence of an election monitoring committee was considered a crucial requirement for a clean election. It came as no surprise that nearing the 1999 Election, a number of election monitoring bodies were formed. The government can no longer ignore their presence, for instance the presence of the KIPP before the 1997 Election. Their presence has now been formalized by means of the Election Law No. 12 year 2003 and the General Election Law No. 10 year 2008.
Apart from KIPP, there are a number of organisations committed to building a network of election monitoring in Indonesia, such as the Forum Rektor dan Jaringan Perguruan Tinggi Pemantau Pemilu (University Network for Free and Fair Election/UNFREL). Their presence is supported by other monitoring organisations such as the Alliance for Independent Election Monitoring (Aliansi Pemantau Pemilu Independen/APPI), the Indonesian Society Network for Election Monitoring (Jaringan Masyarakat Pemantau Pemilu Indonesia/JAMPPI) established by the Indonesia’s Islamic Student Association
(Perhimpunan Mahasiswa Islam Indonesia/PMII), and the Commission for General Election Monitoring (Komisi Pemantauan Pemilihan Umum) the Development of Democratic Life (Pengembangan Kehidupan Demokrasi/KP3KD), and even foreign election monitoring organisations.
The success of the 1999 Election in Indonesia which involved the participation of many monitoring bodies strengthened the call for the need for the presence of monitoring bodies. The General Election Law No. 12 year 2003 has confirmed the role of such Election Monitoring bodies. The Law stipulates that election monitoring organisations should register their presence and obtain accreditation from the Commission for General Elections (Komisi Pemilihan Umum/KPU) (Article 135 paragraph (3) and (4)). In general, the procedures for obtaining the accreditation as a monitoring body from KPU are easy. This explains the presence of 74 election monitoring bodies across Indonesia during the 2004 Election.
Aceh is one of the most attention-drawing regions for monitoring during election. The attention of the monitoring organisations toward the dynamic of democractic processes in Aceh has started to emerge since the Election of Regional Head (Pilkada) in 2006. During the Pilkada, more than 10 local, national and international monitoring organisations were present. Among the most prominent was the monitoring team of the European Union, which deployed 400 personnel. They distributed themselves across Aceh two weeks before the election day. These foreign monitoring personnel monitored the processes of the Pilkada in Aceh for two and a half months.
The presence of election monitoring organisations in Aceh during the past Pilkada was recognised by the law by way of Article 64 paragraph (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Law (Undang-Undang/UU) No. 11 year 2006 on Governing Aceh. To be able to carry out monitoring of an election, they have to meet the standards of accreditation set by the KIP of Aceh. Similar to the General Election five years ago and the 2006 Pilkada, the government also recognizes the presence of local, national and international election monitoring organisations during the 2009 Election. The recognition has been stipulated in Law No. 10 year 2008 on General Elections. The monitoring bodies are free to monitor the implementation of general elections in 2009 in all parts of Indonesia, including Aceh. The Law has 60 articles to govern the presence of election monitoring organisations. The Law may have become the most comprehensive legislation that governs the procedures of general elections in Indonesia, among others through its provisions on the requirements of election monitoring organisations, procedures of monitoring, foreign monitoring organisations (individuals), coverage of regions and the limitations of monitoring organisations/individuals. Article 231 of the Law specifically governs the regulations for the 2009 election, stipulating that “Election Monitoring organisations can be domestic non-government organisations and communities for election monitoring, domestic legal entities, foreign election monitoring organisation, and representatives of friendly countries in Indonesia.” The provision clearly shows a spirit for making a clean and transparent election in 2009.
To be recognised as a monitoring organisation, the organisation must be accredited by the Commission for General Elections (Komisi Pemilihan Umum/KPU). For Aceh, accreditation can be obtained from the Election Independent Commission (Komisi Independen Pemilu/KIP) of Aceh. The procedures for accreditation are contained in Article 232 of the Law No. 10 year 2008, which among others stipulating the following requirements to be recognized as an election monitoring organisation: independent, having a clear source of funding, and accredited by the national, provincial or
district/city KPU in line with their coverage areas.
Paragraph (2) of Article 232 stipulates that foreign election monitoring organisations should have prior experience of election monitoring in other countries, which should be supported by the statement of the respective monitoring organisation or the country of monitoring experience. Monitoring organisations should also be equipped with visas to become part of the Election Monitoring Body from the Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia abroad and adhere to the monitoring procedures as governed by the legislation.
Furthermore Article 233 confirms that Election Monitoring Organisations should submit the application to carry out election monitoring by filling in the registration form provided by the national, provincial, or district/city KPU. The national, provincial or district/city KPU will later have to examine the submission of administrative requirements by the respective election monitoring organisation. Organisations that meet the criteria will be marked as a registered monitoring organisation and provided with an accreditation certificate. Foreign monitoring organisations should obtain a
recommendation from the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
KPU can only issue the permit for monitoring of certain coverage areas to monitoring organisations who have submitted applications. If the organisations are to monitor down to the regional level, they have to obtain accreditation from the provincial and district/city KPU. For Aceh, the provincial KIP and district/city KIP are responsible for this.
Organisations granted with accreditation to take part in election monitoring will have certain privileges. Article 236 of the General Election Law says that election monitoring teams have the rights for legal protection and security from the Government of Indonesia; to observe and collect information on implementation processes of the election; to monitor the voting processes and the vote counts from the voting booth (Tempat Pemungutan Suara); to have access to information from KPU, and the provincial and district/city KPU; and make use of the equipment to document the voting activities as long as it is in line with the implementation of the election. Foreign diplomats serving in the monitoring election have the right to diplomatic impunity during their task as election monitors.
KPU will later issue a code of conduct related to the monitoring of the 2009 Election. This code of conduct should be adhered to by all monitoring organisations in Indonesia. Drawing from the experience during the 2004 Election, the code of conduct will contain the responsibility of members of monitoring teams to wear identity card when conducting all activities, to report the total number and presence of election monitoring personnel, to respect the position, task and authority of the Election Committee and to respect the local customs and culture.
Article 238 of the Law contains prohibitions in relation to the members of election monitoring teams, among others prohibition to put on uniform, colour or other attributes that may give the impression of their support of a specific election participant. In addition, the article governs that monitoring can only be conducted outside of the voting booth (TPS). Members of monitoring teams who violate the provisions can be revoked from their status and rights to monitor elections by the KPU or KIP of Aceh.
In collaboration with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Law and Human Rights will be responsible in handling all violations by foreign members of election monitoring teams by revoking the status and the rights of the team members. Aceh will surely be a top target for the national and foreign monitoring teams because the election in this region will be a unique one due to the participation of local political parties for the first time.
Until end the of September 2008, however, no election monitoring organisation has registered at the KIP of Aceh. The Vice Chair Person of the KIP of Aceh, Ilham Syahputra, estimates that election monitoring organisations will only start to register later during the distribution of logistic supplies, open campaigning, and just before the voting day. “The KPU will issue additional provisions for monitoring organisations. This will in turn require applicant organisations to wait for the regulations before they can register themselves,” says Ilham.
Indonesia's Corruption-Busters
When Indonesia's president delivered his independence day speech to parliament, stressing the need to eradicate corruption, it was clear to many onlookers that the biggest problem was staring him in the face.
In Indonesia, members of parliament top the charts when it comes to corrupt practices.
They're known in the media as "kucing garong" -- tomcats, who prowl the neighborhood in search of something to steal -- and the public here is treated to an almost daily diet of news about corrupt officials who skim, steal, or extort.
For decades, corruption has been a way of life in Southeast Asia's biggest economy.
It permeates almost every level of society, reducing the country's appeal to a wide array of foreign investors, and curbing Indonesia's potential for growth and development so that it lags far behind its Asian rivals, such as China and Malaysia.
With the fall of former president Suharto in 1998, and the move toward greater democracy and regional autonomy, the situation grew even worse, according to some business people, because with more potential decision-makers, that often meant that more officials had to be paid off.
True, Indonesia has pushed through a host of political, economic and social reforms in the past decade, but it's only quite recently that it has made more progress in tackling corruption.
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono won Indonesia's first direct election for president in 2004 on pledges to crack down on corruption. By tackling graft, he expected to attract foreign investment, boost economic growth and create more jobs.
In the past couple of years, Indonesia's anti-corruption agency has taken on scores of officials, from central bankers to ministers, procurement officials to prosecutors.
Even Yudhoyono's relatives are considered fair game: his eldest son's father-in-law was detained as part of a corruption investigation involving the central bank. The fact that Yudhoyono expressed regret but did not interfere in the case has been widely praised and may have won him some political support.
Officials at the agency, known by its Indonesian acronym KPK, have won plenty of media attention with their James Bond-like exploits.
They have tapped suspects' phones and gone under cover to catch their prey, nailing businessmen in hotel lifts while they were in the act of handing over briefcases stuffed with cash, or in luxury hotel rooms with their accomplices.
The taped conversations between prosecutors and businessmen or women discussing pay-offs have been played in court, with one recording even making the rounds as a ringtone for mobile phones.
Yudhoyono's finance minister, Sri Mulyani Indrawati, has taken on two notoriously corrupt departments -- tax and customs -- increasing officials' pay in an attempt to reduce the temptation to steal and reinforcing the message that corruption won't be tolerated.
These measures have paid off. Indonesia's ranking in Transparency International's corruption index has improved slightly.
But there is still plenty to do, particularly in parliament where Indonesia's newfound democracy has been tarnished and a tradition of cash-for-votes raises serious questions about the kind of legislation or regulations that are passed.
That practice was highlighted by a member of parliament called Agus Condro Prayitno earlier this year.
A member of Megawati Sukarnoputri's Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (or PDI-P), Agus admitted he had been given cash after voting in favor of the appointment of senior central banker Miranda Goeltom.
Goeltom, a respected economist, has denied any knowledge of the payments, which according to local media reports may have been instigated by local business groups.
Agus, who admitted to taking the cash and named several others who also took payment, has been expelled from his party.
Members of parliament like Agus are obliged to make donations to their political parties: some have to resort to graft to raise sufficient funds, receiving travelers cheques in exchange for their votes (although one is apparently famously fond of caviar).
Sutan Bhatoegana, another member of parliament, told Reuters that soliciting bribes wasn't common practice among parliamentarians, but does take place.
Such venality puts parliament and legislature at the top of the league tables for corruption in Indonesia, ahead of political parties, police, and customs, according to Transparency International's 2008 Bribe Payers Survey.
The authorities are still working on ways to deal with corruption, including special uniforms for those charged with graft in a bid to shame them when they appear in court.
But some fear that won't be enough to stamp out the practice. Little wonder perhaps that the hardliners are putting up posters on the streets of Jakarta calling for the death penalty for the corrupt.
In Indonesia, members of parliament top the charts when it comes to corrupt practices.
They're known in the media as "kucing garong" -- tomcats, who prowl the neighborhood in search of something to steal -- and the public here is treated to an almost daily diet of news about corrupt officials who skim, steal, or extort.
For decades, corruption has been a way of life in Southeast Asia's biggest economy.
It permeates almost every level of society, reducing the country's appeal to a wide array of foreign investors, and curbing Indonesia's potential for growth and development so that it lags far behind its Asian rivals, such as China and Malaysia.
With the fall of former president Suharto in 1998, and the move toward greater democracy and regional autonomy, the situation grew even worse, according to some business people, because with more potential decision-makers, that often meant that more officials had to be paid off.
True, Indonesia has pushed through a host of political, economic and social reforms in the past decade, but it's only quite recently that it has made more progress in tackling corruption.
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono won Indonesia's first direct election for president in 2004 on pledges to crack down on corruption. By tackling graft, he expected to attract foreign investment, boost economic growth and create more jobs.
In the past couple of years, Indonesia's anti-corruption agency has taken on scores of officials, from central bankers to ministers, procurement officials to prosecutors.
Even Yudhoyono's relatives are considered fair game: his eldest son's father-in-law was detained as part of a corruption investigation involving the central bank. The fact that Yudhoyono expressed regret but did not interfere in the case has been widely praised and may have won him some political support.
Officials at the agency, known by its Indonesian acronym KPK, have won plenty of media attention with their James Bond-like exploits.
They have tapped suspects' phones and gone under cover to catch their prey, nailing businessmen in hotel lifts while they were in the act of handing over briefcases stuffed with cash, or in luxury hotel rooms with their accomplices.
The taped conversations between prosecutors and businessmen or women discussing pay-offs have been played in court, with one recording even making the rounds as a ringtone for mobile phones.
Yudhoyono's finance minister, Sri Mulyani Indrawati, has taken on two notoriously corrupt departments -- tax and customs -- increasing officials' pay in an attempt to reduce the temptation to steal and reinforcing the message that corruption won't be tolerated.
These measures have paid off. Indonesia's ranking in Transparency International's corruption index has improved slightly.
But there is still plenty to do, particularly in parliament where Indonesia's newfound democracy has been tarnished and a tradition of cash-for-votes raises serious questions about the kind of legislation or regulations that are passed.
That practice was highlighted by a member of parliament called Agus Condro Prayitno earlier this year.
A member of Megawati Sukarnoputri's Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (or PDI-P), Agus admitted he had been given cash after voting in favor of the appointment of senior central banker Miranda Goeltom.
Goeltom, a respected economist, has denied any knowledge of the payments, which according to local media reports may have been instigated by local business groups.
Agus, who admitted to taking the cash and named several others who also took payment, has been expelled from his party.
Members of parliament like Agus are obliged to make donations to their political parties: some have to resort to graft to raise sufficient funds, receiving travelers cheques in exchange for their votes (although one is apparently famously fond of caviar).
Sutan Bhatoegana, another member of parliament, told Reuters that soliciting bribes wasn't common practice among parliamentarians, but does take place.
Such venality puts parliament and legislature at the top of the league tables for corruption in Indonesia, ahead of political parties, police, and customs, according to Transparency International's 2008 Bribe Payers Survey.
The authorities are still working on ways to deal with corruption, including special uniforms for those charged with graft in a bid to shame them when they appear in court.
But some fear that won't be enough to stamp out the practice. Little wonder perhaps that the hardliners are putting up posters on the streets of Jakarta calling for the death penalty for the corrupt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
