Background
The 1997 elections will present a different style of campaigning to that of previous ones. The phrase increasingly used for this is "campaigning through dialogue". For these elections there will be no reliance on the processions and mass rallies which in the past have raised concerns about the possibility of rioting. The form of campaigning will thus be different, with greater emphasis being given to discussions, seminars and restricted meetings.
An important media for this "campaigning through dialogue" is television. The restrictions on mass rallies mean that television and radio will become the primary "bridges" via which the political parties can reach their existing supporters among the general public, or encourage new ones.
As a result, access to television and radio is vital for the effectiveness of the campaigns of the three parties. The government, in an effort to give the impression of fairness, has recently issued regulations on how state television (TVRI) can be used in the campaigns of the political parties. These regulations are understood to state that each party will be allocated the same amount of airtime.
However, there has been criticism that these new regulations on the use of television and radio during the 1997 election campaign - contained in Ministry of Information Regulation No. 12 of 1997 - unfairly discriminate against the country's two non-government political parties, the PPP (Partai Persatuan Pembangunan, United Development Party) and the PDI (Partai Demokrasi Indonesia, Indonesian Democratic Party).
Leaders of the PPP, for example, have protested against the new regulations on the grounds that they impose severe restrictions on the parties. For instance, only the chairmen of the three parties will be permitted as speakers in television campaigning. No other person is permitted. Furthermore, the contents of speeches are subjected to prior censorship by the LPU (Lembaga Pemilihan Umum, General Election Institute). "This is very damaging for election contestants", the PPP's Secretary General, Tosari Widjaja, has commented.
Day to day experience shows that, long before the campaign period has begun, the access to television coverage enjoyed by the three parties is far from being even. People often naturally conclude that Golkar is allocated broadcast time almost every day. While, in stark contrast, the PPP and PDI seldom - indeed hardly ever - receive news coverage. It was in order to test the validity of this assumption that television monitoring has been carried out.
Criticism of TVRIs coverage of electoral campaigning has not only arisen in the context of the 1997 elections. During the 1992 elections Golkar's campaign was found to have received three times more air time on the state broadcaster than the other two parties. On Friday, 22 May 1992, for example, of the seven minutes TVRI gave to campaign news, Golkar was featured for four minutes and 25 seconds; compared with one minute 41 seconds for the PPP and just 56 seconds of coverage going to the PDI. TVRI denies charges of deliberately favouring Golkar, however. Instead it offers a variety of excuses, such as that Golkar has more campaigning activities than its counterparts and that it is therefore only natural that Golkar will receive more coverage; or else the station blames absurd technical reasons such as that the limited number of television cameras owned by TVRI necessitates the station being selective about which campaigns it can cover.
In July 1995 Media Indonesia highlighted TVRI's partisan coverage. Over a three month period from April-June 1995, according to TVRI's own statistics, news about Golkar was featured 98 times, compared with ten times for the PPP and a mere two for the PDI. Also noteworthy was the wide variation in the amount of coverage given to the chairs of the three parties. During the same period Golkar chairman Harmoko was featured 38 times, compared with 10 times for PPP chair Ismail Hasan Metareum, while then PDI chairwoman, Megawati Soekarnoputri, appeared in just one news item (Media Indonesia, 8 July 1995).
Private television, whose arrival it had been hoped would introduce a spirit of professionalism and independence into election coverage, has also proved disappointing. Private television ownership is dominated by individuals who are also Golkar leaders, thereby ensuring that private television is also biased towards the party of their owners' choice. RCTI - the biggest of the private stations - is owned by President Soeharto's son Bambang Trihatmojo, who is also Golkar's treasurer. He also owns shares in SCTV, another of the private stations. ANTeve, meanwhile, is owned by Aburizal Bakrie - the head of Kadin (the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce) and Agung Laksono, a Vice Chairperson of Golkar. Other private television stations are also controlled by Golkar leaders. The controlling interest in TPI, for example, is in the hands of another of Golkar's Vice Chairs, Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana (usually referred to as Mbak Tutut), who is also the President's eldest daughter. The remaining private television station, Indosiar, is owned by a conglomerate headed by Liem Sioe Liong, who is a close friend of the President, who in turn is the Chairman of Golkar's Board of Patrons. Such a structure of ownership cannot other than benefit Golkar - as is reflected in the stations' coverage - at the expense of the other parties.
If "campaigning through dialogue" is to be developed properly then the government must be consistent in opening up access to the state radio and television broadcasters - TVRI and RRI (Radio Republik Indonesia) - in an even way to all three parties contesting the elections. For this to be achieved, the need for balance must be reflected in the regulations on television and radio campaign coverage, something that happens as a matter of course in democratic countries. The seriousness with which attention is given to ensuring fair and balanced access to communication facilities can act as a gauge of the fairness or otherwise of the elections themselves. Monitoring Methods
Three daily television news programmes are being monitored for the purpose of this study: Siaran Berita Nasional (TVRI); Cakrawala (ANTeve); and Seputar Indonesia (RCTI). As private television stations, neither ANTeve nor RCTI are under any obligation to be balanced in their allocation of coverage to the three contesting parties. However, as media responsible to their public there should be grounds to hope that they would fulfil the needs of the public and not cater solely to the wishes of their owners. For this reason, private station news coverage is also being monitored, particularly given the close relationship between these stations and the Golkar leadership.
The monitoring is being carried out in three stages. Period I: October-December 1996. Period II: January-March 1997. Period III: April-May 1997. During the first two periods the monitoring is being carried out for one week per month. During Period III, which covers the campaigning period and the 29 May 1997 elections themselves, the frequency of monitoring will be increased. During April 1997 two full weeks will be monitored, while for the month of May there will be daily monitoring of the above mentioned programmes. A report giving the results of each stage of monitoring will be published at the end of each of the three periods. This report represents the first of these reports, and covers the results of the monitoring carried out between October and December 1996.
The monitoring during the October-December 1996 period was carried out during the second week of each month. This report therefore discusses some 31.5 hours of television news, the content of which was transcribed and news related to the elections, the three contesting parties, and their leaders, selected. These reports were then analyzed, both with respect to the length of coverage given to the respective parties as well to the content of the news reports and the footage that accompanied them.
Monitoring Results:
7-13 October 1996
TVRI ANTeve RCTIFrequency/Duration Frequency/Duration Frequency/Duration
PPP 1/1'20" 0/0 0/0
Golkar 8/14'18" 3/2'50" 3/3'39"
PDI 2/3'09" 0/0 0/0
4-10 November 1996
PPP 0/0 0/0 0/0Golkar 6/9'30" 1/0'52" 2/2'32"PDI 0/0 1/3'08" 0/0
9-15 December 1996
PPP 0/0 0/0 1/0.55Golkar 5/10'30" 3/3'29" 2/2'49"PDI 0/0 0/0 0/0
A glance at the data shows that the public's inclination to regard television as being biased in favour of Golkar has sound basis in fact. Both state and private television fail to provide anything like the same proportion of time to the PDI or PPP that they do to Golkar. Not only that, but hardly a day goes by without Golkar or Golkar Chairman Harmoko appearing on TVRI news. From the three weeks of recording of TVRIs news programme, news about the PPP featured just once, the PDI twice. By contrast Golkar and Harmoko were featured 19 times, i.e. almost every day. The time given by TVRI to each of the three parties is also highly unbalanced. PPP received only 1 minute 20 seconds of coverage; PDI three minutes and nine seconds; while Golkar accumulated 34 minutes and 18 seconds.
It would thus appear that Golkar Chairman Harmoko's comment, when meeting party cadres in Central Java, that "no day goes by without consolidation" is absolutely right. At least as far as television is concerned. When averaged out, of the 21 days monitored, Golkar was featured 19 times. Meaning that there were just two days when there was no news about either Golkar or its chairman on TVRI.
Private television also demonstrated similar tendencies. Although during the period of monitoring Golkar was not featured on the private television news every day, either the party or its leadership appeared on average once every three days. Meanwhile, ANTeve featured PDI only once during the three week period, while PPP did not appear at all. On RCTI the PPP appeared just once during the monitoring period, the PDI never. From this it would appear that private television owners who are also Golkar leaders are able to influence their news department policies to favour Golkar.
The length of time given over to Golkar does not, however, reveal the true extent of discrimination. Because it is not only the news programmes that cover Golkar's campaigning activities. Golkar also benefits from the often lengthy special programmes on the party that are broadcast on television. The clearest example of this was the occasion of Golkar's anniversary in October 1996. Then TVRI, along with all five private television stations, featured three hours of non-stop coverage of the celebrations. The festivities, which included a number of speeches about Golkar's political role, were attended by a number of prominent foreigners, as if in order to give the impression that Golkar's success is acknowledged not only within the country but also abroad. In contrast, Megawati Soekarnoputri was not only denied a permit to hold a celebration to mark the PDI's anniversary, but she is also facing questioning in connection with the event that was held anyway and which the authorities are regarding as an illegal meeting. The PPPs creative commemoration of its anniversary through a street parade was also criticized as violating regulations.
Television's support for Golkar, and discrimination against the other parties, can be seen not only with respect to the amount of time given to each of the parties; but also to the content of the news reports. News about Golkar was by and large positive. Harmoko and Mbak Tutut's activities in consolidating the government party, whether it be at rallies or social functions, receiving party contributions, attending sports events or making appeals in the name of development, were given coverage. By contrast, news about the PPP or the PDI generally focused on the problems the minor parties were encountering. The PPP was featured in connection with the failure of some of its members to pass the election candidate screening process, while news about the PDI dealt with the trials of its members.
RCTI's Seputar Indonesia programme only featured news about the PPP once during the monitoring period, and the tone of this was negative to the party. At the time the PPP was facing problems because almost one hundred of their election candidates had failed the LPU's screening process. In this connection RCTI interviewed the Director of BIA (the army's intelligence agency), Major General Farid Zainudin, who asserted that "the problems in the screening of PPP electoral candidates is their own fault, because their paperwork was not complete" (RCTI, 11 December 1996). The screening institute has in fact long been a source of criticism by political parties and pro-democracy activists, who regard it as an unnecessary restriction on party freedom. Through the screening process, leaders with strong grassroots support and opinions other than those of the government are often prevented from entering parliament. The PPP was, however, successful in getting some positive television coverage on TVRI when the party protested the regulations on the sale of alcohol. Indeed, the PPP's harsh attitude towards these regulations aroused considerable interest. A letter sent by the PPP leadership to the Minister of Home Affairs called for the revocation of the regulations on the sale of alcohol. "The PPP believes that the sale of alcohol itself is what harms rather than helps" said PPP Chairman Ismail Hasan Metareum. Strangely, RCTI only interviewed Golkar leaders on this topic, even though the PPP had been most strident in its opposition to the regulations.
As far as the PDI is concerned, what coverage there was during the monitoring period mainly focused on the conflict between Megawati Soekarnoputri and Soerjadi. TRVI featured the PDI on its news programme twice during the period. On the first occasion concerning the trials in Jakarta of 64 members of the pro-Megawati PDI taskforce, and on the second with respect to the failure of Megawati's attempt to take the government to court for assisting with the Medan Congress at which she was replaced as PDI chair by Soerjadi. In both of the news broadcasts the Megawati faction of the PDI was portrayed as the side in the wrong and, as a result, deserving to face legal sanctions. The news about the trials of the pro-Megawati supporters is a case in point. The resolution of the conflict arising from the takeover of the PDI headquarters on 27 July 1996 is widely regarded as having been unjust given the fact that the Megawati supporters who defended the building have been brought to trial whereas the Soerjadi supporters who - with the assistance of the security forces - began the attack remain free. The National Human Rights Commission's recommendation that the "Soerjadi masses" be brought to trial has, up to now, been ignored.
Also covered by TVRI was the news of the court's rejection of Megawati's law suit. As is well known, Megawati sought to take a number of people to court in connection with the Medan Congress. Apart from Soerjadi himself, they included the head of the armed forces, the head of the national police force, and the Minister of Home Affairs. However, the court rejected Megawati's suits against these senior officials on the grounds that "it is not relevant to try them". As a result, in the news item, the Megawati faction of the PDI was portrayed as being in the wrong. The PDI was also featured once on ANTeve's Cakrawala programme, in connection with the refusal of Guruh Soekarnoputro, another of first president Sukarno's children, to respond to a summons from PDI leader Fatimah Achmad. This long news item (three minutes eight seconds), which was broadcast on 5 November 1996, is interesting to analyze. Not only because of the unusual length of the item - the longest item in connection with the elections that was broadcast throughout the monitoring period - but also because of the context. Guruh may well have been disappointed with the PDI split when he became close to Kosgoro, one of the mass organizations responsible for the establishment of Golkar, with which he organized an anti-Ecstasy art exhibition. Guruh's actions were seen by many as indicating his intention to throw in his lot with Golkar. Although in the end Guruh denied this, Kosgoro appears to have lost no opportunity to use their links with him as a vote getter. And it seems quite possible that Agung Laksono, as one of the leaders of Kosgoro, who also owns shares in ANTeve, could have had a role in the decision to run the unusually long piece on Guruh.
Negative news broadcasts, or else the failure of stations to run interviews that are carried out, seem to have caused PDI leaders to more or less give up as far as television is concerned. Megawati has expressed her disappointment with private stations in the past for their repeated failure to broadcast the interviews they do with her. To the point where she once refused to be interviewed by an RCTI journalist. This led to anger among journalists who accused Megawati of being far from accommodative towards their profession. But Megawati is unrepentant. "I am often interviewed, but the interviews are never broadcast. So what's the point?" she asks.Conclusions
1. The monitoring carried out during this three month period demonstrates that television is failing to provide fair access to the three political parties. Golkar benefits from coverage far more than either the PPP or PDI. Golkar and Harmoko were featured nineteen times on TVRI's Berita Nasional news programme, for a total of 34 minutes 18 seconds; while only one item on the PPP, lasting 1 minute 20 seconds, was featured throughout the period, and the PDI had just two news items on them, lasting three minutes 9 seconds.
2. TVRIs allocation of time to the three parties is even more unbalanced if one takes into account particular Golkar meetings, which receive special coverage, for example the party's anniversary celebrations which were shown on all television channels for almost three hours.
3. Private television stations (RCTI and ANTeve) are also unbalanced in the access they provide to election contestants. Golkar was featured seven times on RCTI's Seputar Indonesia for a total of eight minutes and seven times on ANTeve's Cakrawala programme, for seven minutes eleven seconds; meanwhile the PPP was featured only once on RCTI for 55 seconds, and the PDI only once on ANTeve for three minutes and eight seconds.
4. The content of news stories about the three parties also shows a difference of tone. News about Golkar usually focuses on positive matters, for example concerning the donation of funds, rallies, consolidation, social functions, and so on. While news about the PPP and PDI generally deals with problems the two parties are facing. The focus about the PPP for example concentrated on the failure of some candidates to pass the screening test and, in the case of the PDI, the focus was on the Megawati-Soerjadi split.