Surabaya regional elections 2010 is the beginning of the emergence of rules that allow the existence of a single candidate pair in the regional elections. The candidate's spouse at the time seemed to have no opponent. Whether in order to boycott or fear losing, no other party is willing to nominate to fight the existing pair of single candidates.
A group of election activists conducted a material test of the law to the Constitutional Court. This is paying off. In the norms of its ruling, the Constitutional Court accommodates other options if elections in one region are followed by only one candidate pair.
Over time, a single candidate is no longer purely due to the absolute electability or high achievement of the candidate. At a hearing meeting between the Election Organizers and Commission II of the House of Representatives, one of the dpr members mentioned that the single candidate became a shortcut. The way that those who are not ready to compete is to buy all political parties so that only against the Empty Column. The point is, want to win elections the easy way.
Based on the fact, of the dozens of elections attended by one candidate pair, only one was won by The Blank Column. This also has its own record in the process of winning the Blank Column. Incumbents cannot run for election.
In the legislation, The Blank Column is not an Election Participant so there is a ambiguous placement. The Blank column is an option but choose not to select. Blank Columns are not election participants but in Voting, Blank Columns are treated equally/equally to the candidate's spouse.
Moreover, candidate pairs and Blank Columns have unelike treatment. Candidate pairs can have witnesses at polling stations, liaison teams, can campaign, have campaign or winning teams, are structured, facilitated by election organizers, and various other advantages, while Blank Columns have no such things as candidate spouses.
On the other hand, prospective spouses can be penalized if they commit violations and even the form of sanctions can lead to the participation of candidates' spouses in local elections. The form of violations can be political money, campaigns in prohibited places, not providing campaign reports, and so on.
While empty columns cannot be penalized. Thus, even empty columns cannot be disqualified or crossed out. If an empty column can be disqualified, to whom will sanctions be given?
The placement of empty columns as election options but not as election participants, makes the party that wants to campaign for the empty column has no restrictions. No matter how much money is spent campaigning for empty columns, there are no limits. Wherever empty columns are campaigned, there are no limits. In fact, empty columns can be campaigned in quiet times until the day of voting at the polling station.
In this case, there is a legal vacancy regarding the status of the empty column. Placing it on the electoral ballot has actually made the column empty as an election participant. While in the process of elections itself, empty columns are not personal, spouses, bodies, or institutions. Then, when contested against a candidate's spouse, of course this is no longer aple to aple.
When referencing the Constitutional Court's ruling, it seems that the constitutionality of the empty column is more directed to the choice to the electorate. Whether voters "agree" or "disagree" with the candidate's spouse.
Based on the Constitutional Court's ruling, another option in a single candidate's election is not to make a blank column choice. Changing the choice of "agree" or "disagree" to "blank column" means that there is no certainty of legal status. The provision of empty columns in the Electoral Law still has the possibility of being sued to the Constitutional Court.
In order for the election of a single candidate to be more fair and relevant, the form of ballots should be returned in the previous form. The form of the choice of "agree" or "disagree" is more relevant as a form of choice and has more legal basis.
The House of Representatives and the Government need to revise the Electoral Law on single-candidate elections. There is a need for change in terms of participation, how to vote, witnesses, campaigns, participation lawsuits, result lawsuits and so on. All this for fairer and equal elections. []
PABER COLOMBUS SIMAMORA
Observers of elections and democracy
