Can the 2004 election bring about real change?<\/p>\n
Benny Susetyo, Cultural Observer, Malang, East Java<\/p>\n
The question above is oft-repeated but still retains its
\nsignificance and needs reflecting upon, particularly in view of
\nthe pessimism of many parties that the polls this year will not
\nbring much change to the state of the nation.<\/p>\n
Even if there were any changes, they would not be of much
\nsignificance because the public has clearly seen that the same
\nold faces from the past will be many of the figures that form the
\nlineup of the country's new leaders or political elite.<\/p>\n
\"These old faces\" are known to have failed in establishing a
\npolitical system that sides with public welfare. The legislation
\nthat they have produced is frequently aimed at strengthening
\ntheir position rather than that of the people.<\/p>\n
The irony arising from this situation is that, whether
\ndeliberately or otherwise, the country's legislation has been
\ndrafted in a way that will negate popular participation. The
\nworst consequence of this is that House Representatives members
\nhave stunted people's sovereignty. Like it or not, that is a
\ncentral feature of this year's polls.<\/p>\n
This pessimism has been felt since the early days of
\npreparation for the polls. Poll results published in Kompas on
\nDec. 1, 2003, for example, discovered similar pessimism. The
\nresults showed that the public had their doubts about the ability
\nof the new political parties to introduce change. As much as two-
\nthirds of the respondents in this poll were not sure that the new
\nparties would be able to fight for popular aspirations.<\/p>\n
A large proportion of the respondents (40.4 percent) said they
\nwere not interested in voting for any new political party because
\nin their opinion the new parties could neither improve the
\nquality of established parties nor the state of the nation nor
\nproduce suitable leaders. If the parties fail to enjoy the trust
\nof the public, can the elite ever be trusted? This is a major
\nquestion, the answer to which will be seen in the poll results on
\nApril 5, 2004.<\/p>\n
This phenomenon, however, has not come as a big surprise and
\nwas detected from early on. The practice by political parties of
\npaying attention to the public only in the months close to
\npolling day and forgetting them when they enjoy power,
\nparticularly by issuing policies that often disadvantage the
\npublic, has led to public antipathy towards these parties.<\/p>\n
Not surprisingly, many have commented that the election
\ncampaigns have failed to produce an enthusiastic response from
\nthe public. The crowds of people filling the streets and public
\nplaces during elections campaigns have not been genuine party
\nsupporters.<\/p>\n
Most were there not to listen to campaigners making sweet
\npromises, but rather to enjoy the musical performances that go
\nwith the campaigns. It is also public knowledge that many of them
\nwere paid simply to allow political parties to claim to the
\npublic that they were major parties with a large number of
\nsupporters and consequently the public should vote for them.<\/p>\n
It is this reality that has led to public pessimism that this
\nyear's polls will bring about any significant change. To the
\npublic, the legislation produced has simply led to the emergence
\nof major political parties with doubtful qualifications. This
\ndoubt is reinforced when major political parties contesting the
\nelections give more prominence to entertainment than to a clear
\naction program.<\/p>\n
This situation shows that political parties do not have a
\nclear priority list for the establishment of a system of
\ndemocracy. In fact, a system of democracy will run only if a
\npolitical civilization is at work. The latter is evident in
\npolitical behavior that prioritizes common sense rather than
\nsimple emotional sentiment.<\/p>\n
As James Siegel, a political anthropologist with a great
\ninterest in Indonesia, has put it, after the demise of Sukarno,
\nnobody has come out as the spokesperson of the people. The result
\nof his study is quite surprising to the public as it shows that,
\nin reality, popular sovereignty has long gone and has been
\nreplaced by monetary sovereignty. How could this have happened?
\nThe answer is that the political elite has fed the public with
\nconviction, not knowledge.<\/p>\n
This conviction has been propagated via issues related to
\nethnicity, religious background, race and social groups and to
\nideology, which, to borrow the term introduced by one of the
\nworld's greatest psychologists, Sigmund Freud, is infantile in
\ncharacter. Political parties are still at the oral phase of their
\ndevelopment. They are still seeking self-satisfaction.<\/p>\n
It is this orientation that has made the political parties
\ncontesting the elections show simply their reactive response to
\nreal problems. They have raised issues supposedly concerned with
\nenvironmental concerns but purely arouse the emotions of their
\nmasses.<\/p>\n
These political parties rarely, if ever, feed their
\nconstituents with sufficient information about their qualified,
\ncommitted, well-reasoning and morally good legislative
\ncandidates. Their efforts are focused only on the symbol of the
\nparties, not on their reality.<\/p>\n
The artificiality that gains prominence during these campaigns
\nis evidence that our political parties are devoid of a vision for
\npulling Indonesia out of its ongoing crisis. Given the
\ndisappearance of good, correct political behavior and sense, the
\nnation has found it difficult to escape the crisis.<\/p>\n
Politics is a noble task that strives for the realization of
\ncommon prosperity. This task and responsibility is exercised
\nunder the principle of honoring human dignity, freedom, justice,
\nsolidarity, fairness, democracy, equality and responsibility as a
\nmember of a society and country. In many areas, the political
\nparties that will participate in the polls have increasingly
\nignored this principle.<\/p>\n
In this country, politics is understood only as a means to
\nreach or maintain power. Alternatively, it is an arena of
\nstruggle for power and money alone. The people are often used as
\na means simply to justify power.<\/p>\n
Considerations in policies are not geared toward fostering the
\nvalues of humanity and justice but are oriented toward activities
\nthat bring about misery for the people and lead to the erosion of
\npublic confidence. As a result, the public has become apathetic
\nand indifferent to anything related to the general elections.<\/p>\n
This reality should be a mirror for the political elite to
\nshow that they should no longer sell conviction alone. The
\nconviction that they have been selling is no longer attractive to
\nthe public as the public needs change, not just sweet promises.
\nChange will only take place if the public is properly informed
\nabout the root cause of all the problems that the country
\ncurrently faces. The problem now is whether or not political
\nparties will be courageous enough to sell knowledge, and not
\nconviction.<\/p>\n
Hopefully, there will be no more lies between us.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/can-the-2004-election-bring-about-real-change-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }