Talking Dispute Resolution in Jakarta

This particular course was a true model of multiple organizations working together to run a successful course. The course was co-hosted by International IDEA and the Non-Aligned Movement’s Centre for South-South Technical Co-operation (NAM CSSTC). The Centre for Electoral Reform (CETRO) assisted with the compilation and translation of the workshop materials. The Australian Electoral Commission’s Technical Assistance Programme in Jakarta assisted in facilitation and further customisation of the course materials and resources.

Running the course so close to the elections was a challenge. This meant that we could not directly engage officials involved directly with the EMB. Further complications stemmed from the Monday public holiday, which also preceding the start-date of the course. In the end, gaining confirmations from participants scattered across the archipelago of islands proved really difficult.

A decision to postpone the course by one day proved to be the right choice, as it allowed us to substitute participants, creating a more diverse audience from local governments, the Jakarta-based KPU (Indonesian EMB), as well as civil society. The course was also able to accommodate a delegation of five participants from the EMB in Cambodia. Guest-speakers from the Mexican Electoral Tribunal and Electoral Commission of India enriched the 3-day programme, which ran from 11 to 13 March 2009. On-site simultaneous English-Bahasa translation services ensured that everyone could engage fully in the course.

The course was facilitated by;

• Rushdi Nackerdien (International IDEA)
• Adhy Aman (International IDEA)
• Ratna Haranja, (Australian Electoral Commission—AEC)
• Trefor Owen (Australian Electoral Commission—AEC)
• Johny Barliyanta (Australian Electoral Commission—AEC)
• Hadar Gumay (Centre for Electoral Reform—CETRO)

Adhy Aman received his full accreditation during the course.

With Trefor Owen being a co-writer on the Electoral Dispute Resolution, and Hadar Gumay having extensive Indonesian elections experience, we were fortunate to be able to tap into both their thinking during the preparation phase of the course in order to improve the course materials. The course served to introduce participants to key concepts, comparative knowledge and touch lightly on some key skills with regards to electoral dispute resolution.

What was heartening to see was how by the third day, participants were talking clearly about issues raised earlier by the course, as well as referring to the Mexican and Indian case studies as areas that could be explored in future. The Cambodian delegation, which is at the start of their own dispute resolution reform process, expressed their appreciation at being able to engage with the Indonesian counterparts during the course, as well as during pre-course meetings.

With this being one of the first times the electoral dispute resolution module was run. The course provided a valuable opportunity to revisit the content and indentify short-comings and gaps in terms of content. The feedback from this course will prove valuable in terms of enriching future courses on a topic that is bound to enjoy a lot of attention in the near future.