JP\/7\/IGNAS27<\/p>\n
Political survival or political change?<\/p>\n
Ignas Kleden
\nSociologist
\nThe Center for
\nEast Indonesian Affairs
\n(CEIA)
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
"My loyalty to my country ends where my loyalty to my party
\nbegins." This paraphrase of an old political saying seems to hold
\ntrue for us today. Party politicians do not ask what their party
\nmight contribute to the country. They ask instead what enables
\nthe survival of their respective parties and how the country and
\nthe public should be molded to fit that goal.<\/p>\n
The debate about the new elections law is a good case in
\npoint. The larger political parties, such as the Indonesian
\nDemocratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) and Golkar (the
\nformer ruling party), have not bothered much about important
\npoints relating to the electoral system.<\/p>\n
Should voters choose a political party or an individual
\ncandidate? Clearly, voters are better off voting for the
\nindividuals they know, taking into account their skill and
\nintegrity, and commitment to democratic principles.<\/p>\n
Voting for a party would imply that the people would delegate
\ntheir right to elect their party and that they would simply have
\nto accept the persons appointed by the party.<\/p>\n
Thus, the more direct the election, the greater the
\npossibility that voters can decide the future of politics.
\nConversely, the more indirect the election, the greater the power
\nand influence the party politicians would have to give shape to
\nthe future of national politics.<\/p>\n
People wondered why Golkar, as a larger party, did not approve
\na direct election, saying instead it agreed with the "open
\nproportional system" of election.<\/p>\n
A clause was added in the law to say that in the event a voter
\nonly perforated the symbol of a party without perforating the
\nname of a candidate, his vote would be treated as valid and
\ncountable. In contrast, if a voter happened to perforate only the
\nname of a candidate without that of a party symbol, his vote
\nwould be invalid. Media reports showed that this might be a sly
\ntrick on behalf of the larger parties to maintain their
\ndomination.<\/p>\n
Also obvious is the apparent horse-trading between PDI
\nPerjuangan and Golkar in a joint effort to gain the upper hand.
\nAccording to the new elections law, politicians who have been
\nnamed as suspects are entitled to be elected. This smells
\nstrongly of the interests of Golkar in nominating its chairman,
\nAkbar Tandjung, who has been sentenced to three years'
\nimprisonment, although he has appealed to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
Those in public positions are also allowed to participate in
\nthe election campaign. This formulation will soon remind even the
\nmost stupid citizen of the interest of PDI Perjuangan, the United
\nDevelopment Party (PPP) or the National Mandate Party (PAN), to
\nwhich belong current government VIPs.<\/p>\n
Yet another effort is being made to prevent the councils of
\nregional representatives (DPDs) having more political influence
\nvis-a-vis political parties. It seems that the new elections law
\nand other initiated reforms are intended to create a stronger
\nrepresentation of the regions in national politics.<\/p>\n
However, such good intentions face the attempts of the larger
\nparties to secure their hegemony. It was originally proposed that
\nDPD members should not be elected and recruited from among party
\nmembers who were expected to occupy seats within the House of
\nRepresentatives. The hope here is that national politics would
\nnot be dictated entirely by the larger political parties.<\/p>\n
This attempt at political reform is now confronted by some
\nlarger political parties that want to bring in their members into
\nDPDs, under the pretext that party members should be entitled to
\nsome seats within the council of regional representatives,
\notherwise those seats would be occupied by the military only.
\nThat is highly dubious in the face of new developments.<\/p>\n
First, the dual function of the military has been at least
\nformally revoked since the time of the administration of then
\npresident Abdurrahman Wahid. Since then the Military has given up
\nits institutional participation in national politics. This means
\nthe engagement of military people in politics can be carried out
\nlegitimately on a personal basis, without any military ties.<\/p>\n
Secondly, the assumption regarding prospective Military
\ndomination within DPDs implies an underestimation of the
\ncapability of civilian politicians at the regional level.
\nMeanwhile, the idea of having a council of regional
\nrepresentatives was initially to overcome dissatisfaction with
\nthe existing political parties.<\/p>\n
National politics should not depend on the whim of political
\nparties. This is because larger parties often rely more on the
\nmajority of votes at their disposal, rather than on the substance
\nor nature of political issues.<\/p>\n
For example, instead of pushing for a legal regulation that
\nprohibits the simultaneous assumption of public office and the
\ncarrying out of a party function, legislators now tend to approve
\nrules and regulations that allow and enable officials to
\nparticipate in political campaigns for the next general election.
\nThe survival of political parties seem to be the No. 1 priority,
\nwhereas political changes toward democratization are set aside or
\nare made to wait for "Godot".<\/p>\n
Besides, corruption and money politics are not a rarity among
\nthe parties. The financing of the next election campaign has
\nbecome the main focus of most, instead of the financing of their
\npolitical programs. A lot of money is being spent on the
\nattainment of power, but only very little is allocated for the
\nuse of that power in programs that might benefit the
\nconstituencies in particular, and the people at large.<\/p>\n
Politicians are very much tempted to undergo a role seduction
\nof becoming the middlemen who are willing and prepared to serve
\nanybody who can pay.<\/p>\n
Many now understand that a great deal of public interest is
\nnot yet represented by the political parties. Who, among party
\npoliticians, cares about increasing unemployment and who gives
\nspecial attention to the rising number of the poor, for instance?<\/p>\n
Third, party politicians who occupy the legislature turn out
\nnot always to be necessarily the best brains in this country, nor
\nthe most solid personalities on which to rely. This is reflected
\nin recruitment of House candidates, often done on the basis of
\nwhether the candidates are loyal to their party -- even if this
\nmight be detrimental to the public interest.<\/p>\n
We must trust our political parties because no democracy would
\nbe possible without their existence and operations. However,
\nwhile the parties have yet to mature, we can only hope that the
\nexperiment with the councils of regional representatives will be
\nable to cover the deficit within political parties.<\/p>\n
Their role should be encouraged in order to be able to take
\nover some political roles that used to be neglected by the
\nparties.<\/p>\n
The crucial question is whether most members of the political
\ncommunity are oriented toward political changes that facilitate
\npolitical reform and democratization -- or whether most are more
\ncomfortable with the existing status quo, where survival seems to
\nbe the only concern of party politicians.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/jp7ignas27-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}