It's multiparty time<\/p>\n
The birth of Islamic political parties, Chinese parties and
\nlabor parties in recent weeks has raised fears of a return to a
\npolitical system divided along sectarian, ethnic, ideological or
\neven class lines. Many fear that this could upset relations among
\nthe diverse religious, ethnic, race and cultural groups that make
\nup our society. They fear that this trend could lead to the
\nbreaking up of the Indonesian nation as we know it today.<\/p>\n
This view, while sounding too alarmist, is founded on our
\nexperience with the multiparty system in the first decade or so
\nafter Indonesia's independence in 1945. Then, political parties
\nwere founded along religious, ethnic and ideological lines. The
\nfirst general election in 1955, under a democratic parliamentary
\nsystem, was inconclusive, and led to one coalition government
\nreplacing another in sequence, before then president Sukarno
\ndecided to take over and return the country to a presidential,
\nand authoritarian, government.<\/p>\n
The traumatic experience of the 1950s was then used as a
\npretext to limit the number of political parties when Soeharto
\ncame to power in 1966. After the first general election in 1971,
\nthe Army general restricted the number of political parties to
\nthree and ideological divisions were subsequently eliminated by
\nrequiring all three to adhere to Pancasila as their ideology.<\/p>\n
While Soeharto effectively eliminated sectarian and
\nideological politics in his 32-year rule, it is debatable whether
\nthis was a good thing or not. Even without sectarian politics,
\nsectarian conflicts have continued to haunt us and reared their
\nugly heads in recent weeks. We know that judging by the mess
\nSoeharto left behind, the three-party system cannot be defended.
\nIt has failed us, and now we are paying a heavy price for it.<\/p>\n
The birth of Islamic, Chinese and labor parties in recent
\nweeks is a symptom that many people, whether part of the majority
\nor a minority group, do not feel that their interests have been
\ntruly represented by the existing political bodies. After living
\nin deprivation for decades, they now crave for representation,
\nand so these new parties have emerged to meet that demand.<\/p>\n
A return of sectarian politics is potentially divisive or even
\nexplosive, but banning them would be an even graver mistake. Our
\nConstitution guarantees freedom of association and that means
\nthat people have the right to form or join political parties of
\ntheir own choosing. Besides, sectarian politics is a consequence
\nof the diverse nature of our society, so banning their political
\nparties would be tantamount to denying that diversity itself.<\/p>\n
Since sectarian politics is a phenomenon found in other
\ncountries, developed and developing countries, Indonesia could
\nlearn a thing or two on how they have dealt with the issue. If
\ntheir experiences are anything to go by, we may have overstated
\nour fears and concerns of the consequences of sectarian politics.<\/p>\n
One or two things could emerge if Indonesia pursues a
\nmultiparty system in which sectarian parties are permitted to
\ncontest general elections. The first is that elections may be
\ninconclusive and we may have a coalition of parties, including
\nsectarian ones, running government.<\/p>\n
The second is that one or two powerful parties could emerge to
\ndominate the political arena. The two-party system that has
\nevolved in the United States, Britain and Australia did so
\nbecause the dominant political parties attracted the votes of the
\nmajority in the middle of the political spectrum. They are not so
\nmuch driven by ideology as by their desire to represent the
\nincreasingly homogeneous and growing ranks of the middle class.
\nAny political party that can rise to this stature will dominate
\nthe political scene in Indonesia, and these are not likely to be
\nsectarian parties.<\/p>\n
Time will tell which of the two alternative courses Indonesia
\nwill follow. Indonesia is still in a learning process with
\ndemocracy. The multiparty system in the 1955 election may have
\nbeen chaotic and bordering on anarchy, but that was a small price
\nto pay for learning and adopting democracy.<\/p>\n
In retrospect, the multiparty system did not fail us. It was
\nnever given the time and chance to work in the first place. We
\nhave tried, and miserably failed, to impose a restrictive
\nideology-free three-party system for 32 years. Now it's time to
\ngive the multiparty system, with all the risks that sectarian
\npolitics pose, another chance to work. In democracy, nothing
\nventured, nothing gained.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/its-multiparty-time-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}