No party will win a majority in elections<\/p>\n
By Hermawan Sulistyo<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The presence of political parties is a
\nprerequisite for democracy. Together, with other forces,
\npolitical parties are an important component of civil society.
\nThey serve as channels of popular will and interest. Their role
\nin strengthening democracy, however, differs from the past,
\naccording to changes in the contemporary social and political
\nlandscape.<\/p>\n
Under the New Order regime, there were only \"one-and-a-half\"
\nparties. Golkar, the ruling party, dominated the political
\nlandscape, while the United Development Party (PPP) and the
\nIndonesian Democratic Party (PDI) served more as peripheral
\nsupplements rather than functioning as real political parties.
\nUnder the New Order, Golkar was legally not a political party. It
\nwas a \"functional group\".<\/p>\n
Now, during the transition period, there are over 100 budding
\npolitical parties, but only 48 of them have been sanctioned by
\nthe government to contest the 1999 general election. Under this
\nmultiparty system, what is the most likely pattern of support for
\nthese parties?<\/p>\n
This question is difficult to answer. It is quite difficult to
\nassess the strengths of the parties, for the last democratic
\nelection was held in 1955. In that election, the political system
\nwas multiparty, similar to the present system. Taking a look at
\nthe characteristics of voters from the 1955 elections to the 1997
\nelections might provide an understanding of the tendencies of
\nvoters in 1999.<\/p>\n
In the 1955 elections, the youngest first-time voters would
\nhave been born in 1938. In 1999, the oldest of this group would
\nnow be 61. In terms of demographics, eligible voters who
\nexperienced the 1955 general election would only be a small
\nportion of eligible voters in the 1999 elections. Their share is
\nprobably less than 20 percent of eligible voters. This partly
\nexplains why most eligible voters today are still learning about
\nthe democratic process for the upcoming general election.<\/p>\n
In 1955, voter affiliations were based on the so-called
\npolitik aliran (current or flow of politics). Politik aliran is a
\nsystem where political affiliation is based on traditional ties,
\nparticularly ethnicity and religion, more than ideology. The
\nideological base overlapped with the traditional ties.<\/p>\n
Moreover, politik aliran assumes that mass political groupings
\nand associations are clustered around similar groupings and
\nassociations among the elite. Under such a scheme, the 1955
\ngeneral election resulted in the four biggest parties -- the
\nIndonesian Nationalist Party (PNI), the traditional Islamic party
\nNahdlatul Ulama (NU), the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and
\nthe Indonesian Muslim Council (Masyumi) -- each garnering between
\n16 percent to 22 percent of the votes.<\/p>\n
In the first elections during the New Order, which were held
\nin 1971, first-time voters were born in 1954. This same group is
\nnow about 45 years old. Voters between the ages of 17 to 61
\ncomprise the largest bulk of voters, probably over 80 percent of
\nvoters in the elections. In the 1971 general election, when the
\ngovernment had just adopted the floating mass policy and
\nconsolidated its power by reducing the number of political
\nparties to 11, Golkar came out as the biggest party, followed by
\nthe NU and PNI. Masyumi was banned at that time and PKI was
\ndissolved following their alleged involvement in the 1965
\nabortive coup.<\/p>\n
Golkar, a new player in the electoral political landscape, won
\n62 percent of the vote, while NU and PNI received less than 15
\npercent. The 1971 elections show that in terms of the nature of
\npolitical affiliations, there was a reduced flavor of politik
\naliran.<\/p>\n
The New Order was a technocrat state and with the imposition
\nof its depoliticization scheme, voters had less traditional
\npolitical affiliations. The \"real bases\" of previous parties were
\nthus shifting; more artificial affiliations were now replacing
\nthe older, traditional ones. And yet, under a repressive system,
\ncompetition in the elections was not based on comparative images
\nof a party's programs; the competition was based more on the
\ndifferences in \"distance from the center of power\" rather than
\nprograms.<\/p>\n
Apart from some newly founded political parties contesting the
\n1999 elections, some parties still base and rely on support from
\nthe old politik aliran. In an a prior assessment, there is little
\ndoubt that no party will come out with a clear majority in these
\nelections.<\/p>\n
At least two apparent reasons support this assumption. First,
\nif a similar pattern as in the 1955 elections is applied to the
\nupcoming elections, then the pattern of affiliations will provide
\nroom for the biggest party to win no more than 25 percent of the
\nvote. Second, if we are following the 1971 pattern of voting,
\nthen the maximum vote Golkar will win is no higher than 62
\npercent. However, this is in fact a too optimistic expectation,
\nfor the state was fully behind Golkar in the 1971 elections. In
\neither scheme, no party would come out with a clear majority.<\/p>\n
Without competing, the \"armed forces party\" already has 38
\nnonelected seats in the House, or about 7 percent of the total
\n500. The free seats are considered a loss for the Indonesian
\nMilitary (TNI), since TNI was originally allotted 100 seats, a
\nnumber which was later reduced to 75. The 38 nonelected seats is
\nalso considered a loss for prodemocracy activists because the
\nactivists asked that no nonelected seats be allotted to
\nrepresentatives from the military. The allotment of 38 seats is a
\nlose-lose solution for the two political forces.<\/p>\n
If a parallel assessment is taken from the 1955 and 1971
\npattern of votes, one may expect that PDI Perjuangan, PKB, PAN,
\nGolkar and PPP would receive between 15 percent to 25 percent of
\nthe votes each. It should be noted, however, that it is
\nabsolutely impossible for these parties to share the 100 percent
\nvotes evenly. This is not to mention the fact that each party has
\nset a high target for itself. Golkar, for instance, is expecting
\n40 percent to 50 percent of the vote, while PDI Perjuangan, PKB
\nand PAN are convinced they will each gain over 40 percent of the
\nvote. Competing for the same constituency are PBB and PAN -- not
\nto mention the other two Masyumi parties.<\/p>\n
Following the logic of politik aliran, the conclusion is that
\nno party will earn a majority of the vote in the upcoming
\nelections. Adding to this situation is, again, the structure of
\nvoter demographics. Most eligible voters in the 1999 elections
\nhave no experience in general election, other than elections held
\nunder the New Order regime. This means that they have fewer
\npolitik aliran affiliations than older voters -- those 61 years
\nof age and above. The main characteristic of such voter
\ndemographics is fluidity. They easily shift their political
\nsupport from one party to another -- a logical situation that
\nresults from the long-time floating mass policy.<\/p>\n
The floating mass policy also had an impact on the
\ngeographical distribution of support. There are not many areas
\nthat have retained their previous political groupings. The
\n\"Habibie factor\", for example, is a decisive element for Golkar
\nto obtain support from the eastern parts of Indonesia,
\nparticularly Sulawesi. Observers who have predicted that some
\nparties will garner over 30 percent of the vote, therefore,
\nshould be prepared to be disappointed. The results of numerous
\npublic polls cannot be seen as a strong indicator because of the
\nfluid characteristic of voters.<\/p>\n
Dr. Hermawan Sulistyo is the executive director of the
\nResearch Institute for Democracy and Peace in Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/no-party-will-win-a-majority-in-elections-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}