Money politics 'rare' in Indonesia, says Castle<\/p>\n
YOGYAKARTA (JP): The June 7 elections will be the second
\nmulti-party poll held in Indonesia. Australian-born political
\nobserver Lance Castle, who has been studying Indonesia for more
\nthan 40 years, is optimistic the election will bring democracy
\nhere.<\/p>\n
He spoke to The Jakarta Post recently.<\/p>\n
Question: Many people think the 1955 elections were the most
\ndemocratic ever held in Indonesia? What do you think about the
\n1999 elections?<\/p>\n
Answer: The same. Only, at that time (1955), the people had
\nnot predicted that four parties -- Masjumi, the Indonesian
\nNational Party (PNI), the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and the Indonesian
\nCommunist Party (PKI) -- would come out as the biggest, holding
\n70 percent of the votes almost equally.<\/p>\n
Now people are already assuming that only five or six parties
\nwill win the majority of the votes, and their proportion will be
\nunbalanced. One party, namely the National Mandate Party (PAN),
\nwill have the highest vote of about 45 percent. Then the
\nIndonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) with a
\nvote of less than 45 percent. And then the National Awakening
\nParty (PKB), the United Development Party (PPP) and Golkar. The
\nsixth, with the lowest votes, could be the Crescent Star Party
\n(PBB).<\/p>\n
Will the elections improve Indonesia's situation?<\/p>\n
Elections are a democratization process carrying a blessing
\nfor Indonesia. It will answer (grievances) such as corrupt,
\ncollusive and nepotistic practices.<\/p>\n
In the Soeharto era one couldn't expect any sincere effort
\nfrom the government to wipe out corruption, collusion and
\nnepotism. How could you expect such a thing if the president
\nhimself gave the worst model of nepotism?<\/p>\n
Many have been worried that riots could still flare up because
\nthere are so many parties.<\/p>\n
Why? What's the relevance between the numerous parties and the
\nriots? It's not logical to predict such a thing. The ongoing
\nriots, like in Ambon or Sambas, have no relationship with multi-
\nparties at all.<\/p>\n
But clashes between supporters of particular parties do occur
\nin several places...<\/p>\n
With three contesting parties, there were also clashes between
\nsupporters. I think it's just the logic of Indonesians who think
\nthat with only three parties, there were clashes. What if there
\nare 48 parties contesting in the elections?<\/p>\n
Some believe that such a situation is beneficial to the status
\nquo. If they meant it's beneficial to Golkar, it's nonsense.
\nGolkar is finished.<\/p>\n
How can we say an election is successful while another is not?<\/p>\n
As long as you let those who want to vote do so, you can say
\nthat it's a good election. You don't need to see it (the success)
\nfrom the number of voters participating in the elections.
\nChoosing not to vote is also a choice. It's the credibility of
\nthe elections that matters. For me, the most important thing is
\nelection or no election.<\/p>\n
Do you think riots in Ambon or other places will influence the
\nelection?<\/p>\n
I don't think so. Why? In 1955, there were even rebellions in
\nthree provinces. Darul Islam in West Java, Daud Behureuh in Aceh
\nand Kahar Muzakar in South Sulawesi.<\/p>\n
In South Sulawesi, thousands of people could not even be
\nregistered to vote because of the critical condition. Their
\nregion was controlled by Kahar Muzakar. If I'm not mistaken the
\nnumber of people who could not be registered reached 60 thousand.
\nYet, the elections went on. Now, people in Ambon can still cast
\ntheir votes.<\/p>\n
The latest example was the Sanggau Ledo riot preceding the
\n1997 elections. Thousands of people died, but the elections went
\non. No one thought that there would be no elections because of
\nthe riot. So, why are you now thinking of such a thing?<\/p>\n
People are just looking for reasons to be gloomy, to be
\npessimistic. It's weird. Many Indonesians are out of their minds.<\/p>\n
Some believe that a particular group is behind the riots. Your
\ncomment?<\/p>\n
I don't think so. It's also part of the madness that makes
\npeople think that such a group exists. The group is you, the
\nmedia. It's the media who has made people feel that the group
\ndoes exist, that there is engineering behind a particular riot,
\nthat there is a status quo, money politics, conspiracies,
\ndisintegration, bloodshed and so forth.<\/p>\n
What do you think about money politics?<\/p>\n
The case of money influencing politics -- in the sense that
\nyou can buy votes in any way -- is rare. It's a myth. If it's
\ntrue that money decides, Soeharto would be still in power. He has
\nmore money than anyone else has, and so do his cronies. Yet, he
\nwas defeated. He is out. I don't think there is a money factor in
\npolitics.<\/p>\n
What about distributing money to pedicab drivers to make them
\nattend party gatherings?<\/p>\n
It's okay. Amien Rais once told people who were offered money:
\n"Just take it. Then vote for another party as a punishment for
\nthe party who gave you money."<\/p>\n
Again, you cannot buy votes. If you have a good product and a
\npopular candidate, money will come.<\/p>\n
In the UK, U.S., or Australia, there is always a more
\nconservative party and a more liberal one. The UK, for example,
\nhas Conservative and Labor parties. The Conservatives have more
\nmoney than Labor has. Yet, both parties have each ruled the
\ncountry for an almost equal length of time. The same thing
\nhappens in the U.S..<\/p>\n
What about money politics in the New Order era?<\/p>\n
The New Order was in power first and then forced the rich to
\nthrow money away on (Golkar) campaign activities. Now, rich
\npeople are having fun. They are free to give their money to any
\nparty they like. (swa)<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/money-politics-rare-in-indonesia-says-castle-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}