Democracy is a system to form a governing institution and its leader for a certain term through regular general elections. The underlying idea is to get wisdom from the crowd. However, effective democracy needs several intertwined conditions, including a relatively high-income society and a rules-conscious society.
People’s prosperity is the cornerstone of democracy. Psychologists know well that people who lose their wealth suffer more, as compared to long-time poor people. So, the richer the people, the more rational they will be. They will apply freedom hand in hand with obligation. They will not endanger their good lives by not participating in forming a legitimate government. Some experts suggest that democracy runs better in a country with a per capita income of more than US $10,000 a year. That’s why in earlier years suffrage was only for the rich and land owners.
The other substantive matter of democracy in a general election is competition. Rules are set and all participants must abide by these. There is a referee who supervises the competition and guarantees fair play. The competition results in a winner and inevitably a loser. And most importantly, the loser must accept the results gracefully. That’s why, in a mature democratic country, soon after the quick count result, the loser will give a concession speech and ask his supporters to support the winner. If not, democracy brings chaos.
These preconditions bring us to the current situation of RI’s nascent democracy. In fact, after 16 years RI’s democracy has run quite well. However, the recent dispute in the presidential election is a wake-up call. Here are some notes:
Hours after the election people got confused because the two camps claimed different results. One camp announced Prabowo Subianto’s win, but the other claimed Joko “Jokowi” Widodo won. But if we scrutinize further we find that the former camp carried out its survey with a tendency to justify Prabowo’s win. The latter’s result was similar to the General Election Commission’s (KPU’s) result. Obviously, the quick count had been used to disrupt the democratic process and give false hopes to the loser.
Second, there was the blow-up over baseless vote-rigging accusations. After expressing jubilation at “winning” the election, Prabowo‘s supporters asked people to wait for the KPU’s result, but one or two days before the KPU’s announcement Prabowo suddenly asked for a cancellation. Then he withdrew from the vote recapitulation process just minutes before the official announcement that declared Jokowi the winner.
As a last ditch effort, Prabowo resorted to his constitutional rights by filing his case with the Constitutional Court. He made accusations about a structured, systematic and massive vote rigging by the KPU.
Finally, some have blatantly abused the tools of democracy, such as the quick count and the right to dispute the results, since there is no solid proof — let alone 10 truckloads of evidence. Unfortunately, some people still buy this humbug and tolerate such denial of losing. This might be the corollary of a lack of education.
* * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment