JAKARTA (TheInsiderStories) – The national committee to elect Prabowo Subianto – Sandiaga Salahuddin Uno revealed the opposition electability was 62 percent compared to 38 percent owned by incumbent Joko Widodo-Ma’ruf Amin.
The figure is taken from the results of an internal survey of the opposition team which was conducted at the end of March until the beginning of April in 34 provinces. The survey was followed by 1,440 respondents with a multistage random sampling method.
The opposition campaign director, Sugiono, said this internal survey was conducted to measure the performance of the winning team and coalition parties as well as the effects of the debate and open campaign being carried out.
“The public is happy with our program, vision, and mission. We have worked to introduce, show our program to the community through the debate stage, campaign and visit around the region. The proof is that we can surpass the incumbent ahead of the voting day,” he said at a press conference in Jakarta, on Monday (04/08).
Similar results were taken from a survey of Pusat Kajian Kebijakan dan Pembangunan Strategis (Puskaptis) which called opposition electability at 47.59 percent compared to 45.37 belonging to incumbents. The winning difference is predicted to be only 2.14 percent.
“The reason the respondents chose the opposition because they wanted change and the new president. The figure of Subianto-Uno is seen as able to improve current economic conditions and has a firm and authoritative character,” Puskaptis Executive Director Husin Yazid told reporters at the same day.
The survey was conducted from March 26 to April 2, 2019, with 2.100 respondents. The method used is random sampling with a margin of error +/- 2.4 percent at a 95 percent confidence level.
Citizens Voting Rights
Meanwhile, the constitutional court saves citizens’ voting rights which examines law number 7 the Year 2017 concerning general elections against the 1945 constitution. In tests submitted by the electoral activists, this institution confirms that citizens’ voting rights cannot be contested and ruled out by mere technical issues.
This was once stated by this institution ten years ago in the “raison d’être” of decision in 2009 which basically explained, administrative procedures should not negate matters that are substantial, namely right to vote in elections.
At least, there are three administrative issues that have been saved by this institution like allowing the use of certificate of recording electronic identity cards to vote, extension of registration of additional voter lists for certain reasons no later than seven days before voting and counting, and adding the vote count to one days (from 13.00-00 local time) plus one day (12 hours).
Responding to the ruling, the General Election Commission held an open plenary meeting of the recapitulation of 2019 election voters list today. The meeting attended by the election supervisory body, representatives of the national campaign team Joko Widodo – Ma’ruf Amin and Prabowo Subianto – Sandiaga Salahuddin Uno, also the representatives of 16 political parties participating in the general election.
The meeting also involved ministries of related institutions such as the ministry of home affairs, ministry of social affairs, and the ministry of foreign affairs.
“After the verdict, we were still able to record voter transfers from one poll to another until 7 p.m. before the collection,” said the chairman of the election commission Arief Budiman in his remarks in Jakarta.
This is not an easy matter because this decision came out on March 28, only 20-21 days until the voting day. Budiman has asked the committee at the district and city levels to collect data on voters who had moved to polls. The data, then, will be recapitulated at the central level.
Former chief of the constitutional court, Mahfud MD, said that the right to vote is a constitutional right guaranteed by article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 constitution and has been repeatedly confirmed by the constitutional court that such rights cannot be excluded due to mere procedural provisions.
However, it should be borne in mind that the right to vote is not non-derogable rights or rights that cannot be limited if referring to Article 28I paragraph (1) of the 1945 constitution. Therefore, restrictions with certain mechanisms are permissible, as long as they are proportional, rational, with strong reasons, and not excessive, he added.
The restrictions in the election law actually aim to strengthen the legitimacy of the election and create accountability as a reflection of honest and fair elections, although normatively and practically, there are shortcomings that can eliminate the right to vote for citizens.
This ruling is enough to provide a bright spot for accommodating the rights to vote for citizens by extending the interpretation of electronic identity card which includes a certificate issued by the population and civil registry and extending the registration period to move to eligible voters with certain conditions.
The constitutional court has tried to provide legal considerations in order to improve the quality of substantive democracy by prioritizing the values and nature of democracy and the sovereignty of the people. Basically improving the quality of substantive democracy is directly proportional to improving the quality of procedural democracy.
However, procedural democracy needs to be constructed proportionally and rationally so that substantive democratic values are maintained properly.
Procedural elections cannot simply be seen as a means of power succession and the process of converting votes into seats. The election is an embodiment of popular sovereignty, so it needs to be read as the door to the beginning of citizen participation in the decision-making process of administering the government to determine the direction and objectives of the future state administration.
Written by Lexy Nantu, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org