1995 elections 'hold clues for today'<\/p>\n
SEMARANG (JP): Believing the upcoming June 7, 1999 elections
\nwill differ significantly from those held between 1971 and 1997
\nby Soeharto's New Order regime, many have referred to the 1955
\nelections in search of clues.<\/p>\n
Unlike the elections under Soeharto which were often dubbed a
\nfarce, the 1955 poll was believed to be successful in ensuring
\nfree and fair competition, although in the aftermath contesting
\nparties became embroiled in conflicts.<\/p>\n
Yogyakarta-based Gadjah Mada University guest lecturer Herbert
\nFeith from the Australian National University explored the issue
\nrecently.<\/p>\n
Question: What was the key to the 1955 general election, which
\nwent off democratically, safely and peacefully?<\/p>\n
Answer: One was the fact that all parties were represented in
\nthe organizing committee. At that time, some local officials did
\ntry to force their will upon others in the interest of a certain
\nparty but these attempts were resisted by other parties, which
\nreported this matter to government agencies of a higher level or
\nto reporters.<\/p>\n
Indeed, there were practices of intimidation by certain party
\nleaders, particularly in small regions, villages or hamlets where
\nthis party secured a strong position. However, major parties
\ncould also set up their branches in many places. Also, the
\ncontesting parties monitored one another quite effectively.<\/p>\n
Q: Why weren't voters confused by the big number (36) of
\ncontesting parties then?<\/p>\n
A: They were at first, but this prompted many party activists to
\nexplain their programs to the general public. So, the general
\nelection was used as a means to select which parties could or
\ncould not collect votes in big numbers.<\/p>\n
Q: Nevertheless, the elections failed to sustain the
\nparliamentary democracy system. A few years later, the system was
\nabandoned. Why?<\/p>\n
A: This was indeed a great irony. Very fierce election campaigns
\nwere held for quite a long time and could have sharpened social
\nconflicts in a number of regions. That there was obviously no
\nsignificant political consensus during the campaigning period
\nbecame more evident in the post-election period, namely during
\nthe 2nd Ali Sastroamidjojo cabinet (March 1956 - March 1957).<\/p>\n
Of the four biggest winners of the 1955 elections, namely the
\nIndonesian Nationalist Party (PNI), Masyumi, Nahdlatul Ulama and
\nthe Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), all but PKI were
\nrepresented in Ali's cabinet. Yet the conflict between PNI and
\nMasyumi continued within the cabinet so that it grew to be weak.<\/p>\n
This condition was fertile soil for a number of political
\nactors, who felt that they had been discarded by the system of
\nparliamentary democracy under (then) President Sukarno and the
\narmy leadership.<\/p>\n
Q: How did the transition go from the system of parliamentary
\ndemocracy to the system of guided democracy?<\/p>\n
A: The actual transition took a long time to complete but the
\nparliamentary system began to be shaky in mid-1956. At the time,
\nthere were a number of ethnic-based movements, like the Sundanese
\nand the Minang movements. This resulted in great confusion ...
\nespecially because during the election campaigning there was no
\ndiscourse on ethnicity except when anti-Chinese turmoil broke
\nout. The 1955 elections... failed to introduce any changes.<\/p>\n
Q: Will there be a reemergence of the sectarian tendency in the
\nupcoming 1999 election?<\/p>\n
A: I believe the sectarian pattern is still strongly in practice,
\nparticularly in Java.<\/p>\n
So, in fact, there is no need to regret it. It is entirely all
\nright to put the general election to the test in accordance with
\nthe knowledge of the electoral masses and also on the basis of
\nthe party programs. However, in this respect the factors of trust
\nand suspicion will play a big role. Nevertheless, the factor of
\ngroup loyalty will play a bigger role than party programs.<\/p>\n
Take a farmer in East Java, for example. His kyai (religious
\nteacher), who happens to be his uncle, recommends that he vote
\nfor PKB (the National Awakening Party). One of his neighbors, who
\nis a junior high school teacher, recommends PAN (the National
\nMandate Party) to him. Then, a nephew of his, a university
\nstudent leader, asks him to vote for Megawati Soekarnoputri-led
\nPDI (Indonesian Democratic Party).<\/p>\n
So his choice will be influenced by his personal relationships
\nwith the three persons much more than his confidence in the
\nrepresentatives of these three parties.<\/p>\n
Q: And?<\/p>\n
A: A person can be influenced by a personal relationship and also
\nby his religious-cultural identity, namely whether he is closer
\nto NU or Muhammadiyah or to the syncretic tradition of
\nMarhaenism-Sukarnoism. So, never consider a voter ignorant or
\njust following where the wind blows when casting his ballot.<\/p>\n
Q: The 1999 poll will be held amid a deep economic crisis. Can we
\never expect that it may contribute to reform and democratization?<\/p>\n
A: The test is indeed tough. However... there are a number of
\n(factors). First, as a result of the election campaigns, the
\nposition of the reform elements may be strengthened, stronger
\nthan those of the New Order.<\/p>\n
Besides, there is an edifying factor in favor of the community
\nin that they will get acquainted with political institutions
\nwhich adhere to the principles of constitutional democracy.
\nNowadays, the public has begun to learn much about the
\ninstitutions of democracy as a result of ongoing debates on a
\nsuitable and appropriate election system.<\/p>\n
This learning process must be continued during the
\ncampaigning, among others by the electoral committee, the parties
\nthemselves, non-governmental organizations, independent election
\nwatchdog bodies, journalists and students. They all, in one way
\nor another, will educate the voters.<\/p>\n
Q: What do you think of the prospect of a constitutional
\ndemocracy today, in comparison with the situation in 1955?<\/p>\n
A: In 1955, institutions of constitutional democracy were in
\nexistence but they were \"limping.\"<\/p>\n
Tragically... what must be confronted now is how to re-
\nestablish and empower these institutions following two
\nsuccessively authoritarian administrations.<\/p>\n
In the past 40 years there have been many changes... We have
\nmore urban people now. Besides, there is greater prosperity and
\nour people have been much influenced by the globalized mass
\nmedia. As a result, the class structure has undergone a change,
\ntoo.<\/p>\n
(What helps in reestablishing institutions of democracy) is
\ncontemplation about the bitter experiences under the two
\nauthoritarian governments, namely the Guided Democracy regime and
\nthe New Order regime.<\/p>\n
Both regimes justified their acts in the name of Indonesian
\nidentity. Both have brought about only great disappointment.
\n(Haryoso)<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/1995-elections-hold-clues-for-today-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}