Is the Socialization of Presidential Election by the Commission Already Maximized?

Independent Election Monitoring Committee (KIPP) assesses that General Election Commission (KPU) is still lacking of socialization. It was not apart from the Election Commission performance and the enthusiasm of the voters. How should the Commission and voters act on election, It is the following an interview between with Chief of KIPP, Willi Sumarlin.

According to KIPP, Does the Commission have perform the maximum effort in socializing the vision and mission of presidential candidate in 2014?

In the terms of openness it has enough, by showing the vision and mission from the candidate on the Commission website, but it is certainly not reach enough to all public, moreover the Commission is held the candidates debate that broadcast in television, but it’s certainly not enough due to another segment that needs face to face meetings in order to see and or hear the vision and mission from the candidates, for example in remote areas, indigenous communities and others.

KPU will shrink the number of polling stations in all over areas. Does the Commission have perform the maximum effort in socializing this information to the voter? If it does not, what KIPP propose to the Commission?

Actually the polling stations can be seen in the DPT, and yes it should be seen in the polling stations or urban-village, but due to activity especially in Jakarta, I think people is rarely to check their name in the DPT. In addition, people can also check his name in DPT on the Commission website.

He assessed, the changing of polling stations number is still lack of socialization, because it will be delivered by the officer at the time when they give a letter of invitation. It could be that voters who do not know the polling stations changes will come to the previous location, then at the time, they will know the new polling locations, of course it will taking more time, I think it needs to be socialized as soon as possible, so that voters know the location of polling stations. It also needs active participation from the community to check his name in the DPT, are they already registered in the polling station and how they will use the right to vote?

Based on past experience of legislative election, how KIPP assess the performance of the Commission?

I think it is not optimal enough, generally the voting process went well, but at the time of votes counting in some polling stations is still found lack of understanding among the officers regarding the valid ballots, such as ballots elected on behalf of political parties and candidates should be calculated once or twice. Then there are one polling station when the difference happened, they not recalculate but raffle the ballots then the results added to the political parties that came out in the lottery, lack of professionalism from the officer is inhibits the recapitulation at the national level although in the end can be completed on time.

In addition there are cases of ballot swapped, in Jakarta KIPP have monitoring five polling stations that are swapped then conducted the re-voting (in the east Jakarta).

If it less satisfactory, what performance which should be improved from the Commission for Presidential Election?

I think, everything needs to be improved in order not to repeat the deficiencies during legislative election.

Some time ago, in the online media, KIPP mentioned that there is KPPS which unprofessional as organizer committee, how about the next presidential election? It was happened in Jakarta, what if it happened in other places?

One of their lack of professionalism is as shown above, may be it can be handled with doing the recruitment process (replacing workers that less satisfactory), and then perform the technical guidance to all KPPS officers.

There is possibility that incident would happen elsewhere, but because the focus of our monitoring in Jakarta was only a small portrait (from around 17,000 polling stations, we were only monitor 100 polling stations)

On election fraud, is there opportunities for it? How to overcome or minimize them together, whether the Commission, the party, the voters or the public?

Potential fraud is always exist, one of it by giving understanding (political education) regarding anti money-politics consciousness, or with a joint campaigns to decline money-politics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

13 + seventeen =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>