How long will political uncertainty last?<\/p>\n
By Yulius P. Hermawan<\/p>\n
This is the first of two articles on political transition in
\nIndonesia.<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): Every observer of Indonesian politics will agree
\nthat the transition to democracy is not a linear process which
\nwill generate political certainties in a short time, as many
\npeople had hoped. No one can predict what will happen in either
\nthe short term or the long term. Nor can anyone predict whether
\nthe transition will proceed in a smooth and rational manner.<\/p>\n
The process really depends on the game of politics, in which
\n\"political gladiators\" are actively taking part. The process may
\ntake a long time to complete because there are many issues and
\nvested interests which will prove to be serious obstacles to the
\nultimate success of the transition.<\/p>\n
Political uncertainty is somewhat common to new democracies
\n(O'Donnel and Schmitter, 1986). There are at least two factors
\nwhich cause political uncertainty and which are likely to affect
\nthe length of the uncertainty.<\/p>\n
First, political gladiators must compete with each other --
\nto outperform other contestants, but not to eliminate their
\nrivals. The competition is open to all contestants. Various
\npolitical actors may enter the competition -- including pro-
\nstatus quo forces and new political forces which seek gradual or
\nradical approaches to building democracy. There are also
\npolitical opportunists among the contestants who seek to take
\nadvantage of the changing situation to further their own
\ninterests.<\/p>\n
Second, the political gladiators will be reluctant to reach a
\nconsensus about democratic values before entering the contest.
\nThey may respect the principles and rules of the political game,
\nbut they will be eager to secure access to power by taking a
\ntough stand against other contestants. Even though there is
\nstrong pressure for new political forces to form an alliance or
\ncoalition to block pro-status quo forces, it is rare for new
\nforces to take the initiative and establish a consensus for the
\nalliance or coalition.<\/p>\n
This is to say that democracy will emerge as a result of
\nimpasse and disagreement; not as a result of unity and consensus.
\nDemocracy emerges by interlinking different interests and
\ncontrary ideas to generate strategic interactions among political
\nactors.<\/p>\n
During the transition process, abnormality is a central
\ncharacteristic of political life. People will raise many
\nquestions about the legitimacy of their leaders, the
\ninvestigation into the wrongdoings of the past regime, the
\nformation of a credible and legitimate administration, the
\ncapability and credibility of new leaders and the creation of new
\npolitical laws.<\/p>\n
The transition ends when a stable normality arises and becomes
\nthe main character of political life. In some respects, this will
\nhappen after all the political actors have established and
\nsecured a set of relatively explicit rules. These rules will be
\nthe main signpost for political actors to gain equal access to
\npower, take part in the competition according to all legal
\nmanners, adopt certain procedures to facilitate the decision
\nmaking process and establish criterion to outperform other
\npolitical actors (O'Donnel and Schmitter, 1986). Then this set of
\nrules will be accepted as a new regime.<\/p>\n
The case of the ongoing transition to democracy in Indonesia
\nshows these two challenging factors have led to abnormality as
\nthe central characteristic of political life. Postelection
\npolitics in the country reveal problems which are even more
\ncomplicated than most people thought before the recent polls.<\/p>\n
The first dimension of this complication is that the
\ntransition has provided an equal chance for various political
\nactors. Hundreds of political parties were formed, representing
\nvarious interests, issues and groups. Yet there were only a few
\nparties which actually gained a significant number of supporters
\nand which established a nation-wide base. The recent elections
\nshow that only five parties collected a substantial number of
\nvotes and seats in the House of Representatives.<\/p>\n
The formation of new political forces is an exciting
\nphenomenon in Indonesian politics. Yet, the more interesting
\nphenomenon is the fact that none of these forces could eliminate
\nthe ruling Golkar Party, which, broadly speaking, should be held
\nresponsible for the misdeed of the authoritarian New Order
\nregime.<\/p>\n
The ruling Golkar has continuously been blasted for rampant
\ncorruption and mismanagement of the economy, leading to the
\ncurrent economic and social crises. Amid this widespread
\ncriticism, Golkar still exists and should be considered one of
\nthe prospective political gladiators in the postelection
\npolitical world.<\/p>\n
A consensus on unitary actions is somewhat difficult to build
\nin Indonesian politics. It is unfortunate the persistence of
\nGolkar did not lead parties which call themselves reformists to
\nunite. There were so much necessity for reform parties to form a
\ncoalition. However, these parties seemed to be reluctant to take
\nthe initiative. They knew very well they should block Golkar's
\nattempts to win the general election. A coalition was not only
\nnecessary, but imperative to make reform possible. However, these
\nparties did not take the initiate and form a coalition.<\/p>\n
In the postelection era, forming a coalition of reform parties
\nis even more complicated. There is a question as to whether the
\nIndonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) is truly
\nreformist since the party is against amending the constitution
\nand has never made its stance clear on the dual function of the
\nIndonesian Military.<\/p>\n
There is also some doubt about the capability of chairwoman
\nMegawati Soekarnoputri, who is the front-runner to become the
\nnext president.<\/p>\n
The dichotomy of pro-status quo and reformist is further
\ncomplicated by the popular new issue of Muslim and non-Muslim
\nlegislative candidates. This issue has caused some people to
\nquestion whether PDI Perjuangan wishes to establish a secular
\nstate under the influence of Christians and non-Muslims.<\/p>\n
Which parties will come together to form a coalition is now a
\nchallenging issue. Adding to the challenge is the fact that the
\nruling Golkar is more active than other parties in initiating a
\ncoalition. Golkar's attempts to form a coalition with other major
\nparties, including the United Development Party (PPP), the
\nNational Mandate Party (PAN), the National Awakening Party (PKB)
\nand even PDI Perjuangan have further complicated the coalition
\nissue.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer in International Relations at
\nParahyangan Catholic University and a researcher at the
\nParahyangan Center for International Studies in Bandung. This
\narticle is based on research on Korean politics completed at the
\nSchool of Politics at Monash University, Australia, in 1997.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/how-long-will-political-uncertainty-last-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}