Democratization in Indonesia: Triumph or crisis?<\/p>\n
Chusnul Mar'iyah<\/p>\n
In the midst of violence, the processes of political change
\ncontinued in 2002, one of which was the amendments to the 1945
\nConstitution.<\/p>\n
The most important changes brought about by of the second and
\nfourth amendments to the Constitution are as follows: First, a
\ndirect presidential election -- carried out in a two-round
\nprocess -- for the next election.<\/p>\n
It is the most important change in the post-Soeharto era and
\nmarks a highly hopeful future of more democratic processes in
\nIndonesian politics. Second, the People's Consultative Assembly
\n(MPR) was changed into a bicameral institution.<\/p>\n
With such changes, would democratization in the face of the
\n2004 election bring stable democracy? We need to look at both the
\nabove amendments and also preparations for the 2004 election, to
\nconclude whether democratization in Indonesia is heading for
\ntriumph or further crisis.<\/p>\n
Basically, the pressure by civil society since November 1999
\n-- in the form of the non-governmental organization (NGO)
\ncoalition for a new constitution -- has been adopted in the
\nsecond, third and fourth amendment. Since November 1999, the
\ncoalition had striven for a direct presidential election, but the
\nMPR rejected it at its annual meeting in 2000.<\/p>\n
The coalition, according to the NGO Center for Electoral
\nReform (Cetro), organized more than 15,000 petitions from 26
\nprovinces and 76 cities in Indonesia in support of a direct
\npresidential election. The MPR secretariat had to disconnect its
\nfacsimile machine due to the sheer number of letters received. It
\nseems that the political process still lacks public consultation,
\nlet alone consent.<\/p>\n
In the MPR annual meeting this year, the first and second
\nrounds agreed to adopt a direct presidential election. Why did
\nthe MPR only agree to a direct election during this year's annual
\nmeeting, when the demand has been voiced since the annual meeting
\nin 2000?<\/p>\n
And what did MPR members say about the Indonesian
\nMilitary\/Police (TNI\/Polri) when the NGO coalition met with
\nlegislators on this issue? In an informal meeting with
\nlegislators, Slamet Efendi Yusuf from the Golkar party said that
\nhe had to go and see a doctor in the middle of the night due to
\nhypertension and was not allowed to attend the meeting any more.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, a spokesperson from the Indonesian Democratic of
\nStruggle (PDI Perjuangan) stated that TNI\/Polri were like the
\nglue of this nation and so it was necessary to retain their
\ninvolvement in the MPR.<\/p>\n
There are many more interesting aspects in relation to the
\nviews and behavior of the political elite. They were witnessed
\nduring the 2000 MPR Annual Meeting where NGO representatives
\nbecame members of what was dubbed the Fraksi Balkon (the
\n"faction" attending the session from the balcony). In 2002, the
\nMPR at least approved Article 2, Paragraph 1 to free MPR seats
\nfrom unelected TNI\/Polri representatives. The substance of the
\namendments, meanwhile, still reeked of vested political
\ninterests.<\/p>\n
To say that the 1999 General Election was democratic is
\nrelatively correct. However, after being a member of the General
\nElections Commission (KPU), I could argue that the process was
\nnot totally democratic. There are so many cases that have been
\ntaken to the State Administrative Court (PTUN).<\/p>\n
The cases included the illegal election of House members. At
\nleast 18 legislators, including a party chairman, allegedly
\nviolated the procedures in the process for their nomination to
\nthe House of Representatives.<\/p>\n
In the 1999 General Election, many KPU members did not sign up
\nto the result of the election. The 1999 election is thus flawed,
\nthough former president B.J. Habibie signed it.<\/p>\n
The 1999 General Election was not only a political process but
\nalso a change from an authoritarian regime. Unfortunately,
\ndespite Soeharto's departure the political system in the general
\nelection remains. A democratic nation needs an independent civil
\nsociety, something that cannot be brought about under the current
\nsystem.<\/p>\n
Another vital development in 2002 was the further
\ndeliberations and passing of the political party law while the
\ndraft electoral law was still being discussed.<\/p>\n
The direct presidential election seems to be in place, yet the
\nnecessary ruling on the composition and position of MPR members
\nto be involved in the process has not been passed into law.
\nAnother issue is the Military, in which there will be no more
\nlegislators appointed from TNI\/Polri. And the issue of corruption
\nwas eventually progressed, with the establishment of an
\nanticorruption commission, despite its shortcomings.<\/p>\n
In the third amendment to the constitution, chapter 22E,
\nArticle 22 states that "the body supervising the general election
\nis the General Elections Commission, which is nationwide,
\npermanent and independent".<\/p>\n
Therefore, the most authoritative body for supervising
\nelections is KPU. However, the law on elections has not yet been
\ncompleted.<\/p>\n
The DPR passed the law on political parties only this year.
\nThere are some important issues here that must draw the public's
\nattention. First, the issue of finance. Political parties must
\nreport their financial affairs to KPU.<\/p>\n
Second, how to build internal democracy in a political party,
\nincluding increasing the involvement of women. The issue on
\ngender equity and justice received much opposition among the DPR
\npatriarchs. It seems that there is lack of understanding of
\ninclusive democracy and deliberative democracy. The demand for a
\n30 percent quota for women was not accepted in the law of
\npolitical parties. Deliberative democracy means that the voice of
\nthe majority of people who will most likely be affected by the
\ngovernment's decisions must be heard in any decision-making
\nprocess. Women are the majority of citizens today, hence
\nincreasing women's role in the decision-making process is a must.<\/p>\n
Further, the electoral law, which has not yet been passed.
\nPolitical parties have drawn up a list of 963 problems regarding
\nthe bill.<\/p>\n
The delayed law on the elections has automatically affected
\npreparations by the KPU. For example, so far we don't have an
\nelectoral register that would be effective for five years. The
\nKPU has already decided on a register of voters (voting roll) but
\nimplementing the decision depends on the electoral law still
\nbeing deliberated in the DPR.<\/p>\n
The big political parties tend to prefer the closed lists of
\ncandidates associated with the old proportional system, in which
\npolitical parties, meaning their oligarchy, decide on who will be
\nthe candidates.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the challenge is to democratize political parties.
\nHow far would the electoral law give leeway for democratic rule?
\nPlans for a direct presidential election law will also be delayed
\nuntil the electoral law is passed.<\/p>\n
Our attempts at democratization have been also been hampered
\nin the area of human rights. No human rights violation cases,
\nsuch as in Aceh, Trisakti University or the Semanggi shootings
\nhas been satisfactorily resolved. Furthermore, corruption is
\nstill endemic, especially with indications of wider misuse of
\nstate money at almost every level of government and the
\nlegislative and judicial bodies. We also lack leadership at
\nvarious levels of government.<\/p>\n
Political tension has been worsened by a tendency toward
\nreligion-related radicalism, particularly within Islamic groups.
\nThere is no room for radicalism in Indonesian politics. The
\ncampaign of a permanent war against terrorism and a war in Iraq
\nwill also influence the political process in Indonesia through
\nthe 2004 elections. This is a consequence of the structure of
\nIndonesian society. Demands for syariah (Islamic) law in several
\ncities and regencies must be handled through democratic and
\npeaceful approaches.<\/p>\n
Hence, the democratic rules of the game may be at a
\ncrossroads. Faced with an ongoing transformation in which
\ndemocratic ideals have yet to be realized, there are still many
\nobstacles to be overcome. The real goals of democratization,
\nincluding gender equality and justice, won through nonviolent
\nmeans, must be achieved by ending our habitual exclusion of
\npoverty and gender.<\/p>\n
Political tension in 2003 will be higher. Verifying which
\npolitical parties can participate in the general election will be
\namong the major tasks next year. The sheer number of political
\nparties, which now total 225, will be another obstacle. The total
\nwould not be so important if each party obeyed the legal and
\npolitical rules of the game. Political parties are important in
\nenhancing democracy when they have an internal democratic
\nculture, are exempt from corruption, are gender-sensitive and
\noriented toward people's welfare.<\/p>\n
The pessimists on democratization will say that change has not
\noccurred since the downfall of Soeharto. Nevertheless, optimism
\nmust be the modality for change.<\/p>\n
The means and processes aimed at achieving democracy --
\nconstitutional reform, changing the regime, electoral reform,
\naccountable political parties, civil society awareness, gender
\nequality and justice -- will bring civil and political liberties
\nand prosperity under the banner "participatory democracy",
\narrived at without violence.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/democratization-in-indonesia-triumph-or-crisis-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}