How neutral is 'neutral'?<\/p>\n
"Neutrality" in Indonesian politics has meant anything but
\nneutral, just like our "democracy" is not really democratic. This
\nhas been the case throughout the 32 years of the New Order
\nregime. The civil service and the Armed Forces (ABRI), while
\nprofessing neutrality, supported former president Soeharto and
\nhis political machine Golkar to help sustain power. They not only
\nmobilized their personnel and family during elections, but, as
\nthe administrators and supervisors of the elections, they helped
\nrig the results to ensure a victory for Golkar. The civil service
\nand the military were part and parcel of the New Order power
\nstructure. They were anything but neutral.<\/p>\n
Few people dared to openly question the ABRI leadership when
\nit again promised last week to keep neutrality in the June
\nelections. There were a few muted comments, but most people are
\nwilling to give them the benefit of the doubt, and let time prove
\nwhether the military can live up to its words this time.<\/p>\n
It's a totally different game when it comes to the neutrality
\nof civil servants. With the election fast approaching, the fate
\nof government workers has been the subject of a heated debate in
\nand outside the House of Representatives, which is preparing the
\nnew political legislations, including electoral law.<\/p>\n
Given its history of conspiracy with Golkar, it is not
\nsurprising many political parties are skeptical that the civil
\nservice can truly remain neutral. The United Development Party
\n(PPP) is currently leading the campaign in the House to prevent
\ncivil servants from running in the election, or from becoming
\nparty executives, unless they take unpaid leave from government
\nservices. PPP may be in minority in the House, but it speaks on
\nbehalf of most of the 100 or so new political parties vying to
\ncontest the election.<\/p>\n
Golkar is the lone faction in the House defending what it
\nvehemently claims to be the political right of civil servants as
\ncitizens of the country to run in elections. Coming from an
\norganization with a 32-year history of trampling the political
\nrights of millions of people, Golkar's argument sounds comical
\nand borders on an insult. This line of argument is nothing but a
\ndesperate attempt to defend some of its last vestiges of power.<\/p>\n
Golkar's past privileges allowed it to be the only political
\nforce outside the military and the bureaucracy with extensive
\nbranches at village levels. Most of these branches are run by the
\nvillage heads and their bureaucratic structures. These are
\nGolkar's grassroots workers who have delivered the votes for
\nGolkar in the past, and are expected to do so again in the
\nfuture, if Golkar has its way in the House. Remove them from the
\npolitical arena, and Golkar will lose some of its political
\nclouts.<\/p>\n
Golkar remains powerful, if not outside, at least inside the
\nHouse, where it has the necessary numbers to outvote the other
\nthree factions combined. By all accounts, it looks ready to flex
\nits muscle again and force the issue to a vote, in spite of
\npublic opinion to the contrary.<\/p>\n
However, opposition concerns about the ability of civil
\nservants to remain neutral are overshadowed by deep-seated
\nsuspicions about Golkar's intentions, and what it is capable of
\ndoing. If anything, this saga about the political future of civil
\nservants has exposed that Golkar, despite changes in its
\nleadership and claims of pursuing the reform path, is still run
\nby people molded in old politics, where the ends justify the
\nmeans to stay in power.<\/p>\n
This is a terrifying prospect for the future of Indonesia's
\ndemocracy, given that Golkar is still calling most of the shots
\nin the legislative agenda and it still commands significant power
\nand influence in the country, largely through its past patron-
\nclient relationship and massive financial backing.<\/p>\n
But Golkar would commit a grave mistake if it thinks that it
\ncan get away by flexing its muscle again as in the past. Golkar
\nis a part of that New Order structure that the nation has been
\nseeking to abolish. Golkar, therefore, has no more legitimate
\nright than does President B.J. Habibie to remain in power, but
\nboth have managed do so, apparently because of practical
\nconsiderations. They rule from a very shaky position, with the
\nconsent of the people which can be removed any time. Their job is
\nto see the nation through to the next election, which everyone
\nhopes will be democratic.<\/p>\n
The nation, represented by students, will rebel at the first
\nsign of abuse of power, or a return to Golkar's old repressive
\npractices. If and when that happens, the target will be Golkar
\nand all its organs, and the group will be banished forever, just
\nlike the New Order did to the Indonesian Communist Party in 1966.
\nAnd then, for sure, we will see a bloodbath of the scale we saw
\nin the 1960s.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/how-neutral-is-neutral-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}