Party takes bold step towards maturity<\/p>\n
By Mochtar Buchori<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The decision of the Indonesian Democratic Party
\nof Struggle (PDIP) leadership to expel 17 of its members, to
\ndischarge two of its members from their present party posts, and
\nto issue a stern warning to 25 members for their lax
\nundisciplined behavior is a very bold step that merits praise.<\/p>\n
It is also very courageous of PDIP to reveal, albeit
\nindirectly, that the 17 members who were expelled from the party
\nwere found guilty of involvement in money politics.<\/p>\n
Rumors about practices of money politics within this party
\nhave been going on for some years now. The most talked about
\nissue was that certain party functionaries extracted money from
\nthose who aspired to become members of the national and local
\nlegislature, both at the provincial and the district level,
\nrunning on the PDIP ticket.<\/p>\n
When the general elections were over, and the composition of
\nboth the national and local legislature was settled, the practice
\nof money politics shifted to providing political support to
\ncandidates for executive positions, from candidates for
\nprovincial governor down to candidates for mayor and bupati
\n(district head).<\/p>\n
Providing such support consists of two steps, that is writing
\nletters of recommendation at the beginning of the race and
\nmobilizing support from members of the local legislature at the
\ntime of actual voting.<\/p>\n
The first step can be done only by party bosses, persons of
\nhigh position on the central executive board. There were
\ninstances where the party issued two letters of recommendation to
\ntwo different candidates for one contested position.<\/p>\n
That means that the party has actually no official guidelines
\nconcerning whom to support and whom to oppose in any contest. It
\nall depends upon the personal choice of individuals in the party
\ninterested in playing the game of money politics; and the result
\ndepends, in many instances, upon which candidate is willing to
\npay the highest amount of money.<\/p>\n
This practice was condemned by many party members, and they
\nexpressed their disapproval loudly and clearly, so that it was
\njust impossible for the party bosses not to hear these dissenting
\nvoices.<\/p>\n
But in most cases such protests seemed to fall on deaf ears.
\nThe result was at times very ironical. Even in places where PDIP
\nconstitutes the majority in the local legislature, the winners in
\nsuch contests were not PDIP candidates, but candidates from other
\npolitical parties with much smaller representation than PDIP.<\/p>\n
Another irregularity within PDIP which became the focus of
\npublic gossip and criticism was the formation of delegates to the
\nPDIP Congress in March 2000 in Semarang.<\/p>\n
Two kinds of irregularities happened in this instance. First,
\nabout 27 districts sent two delegates (double representation) to
\nthis congress. And in each case both delegates were equipped with
\nvalid credentials.<\/p>\n
It was very obvious that someone or a group of persons within
\nthe political hierarchy above the district level were playing a
\nfoul game. And that such a violation of a basic organizational
\nrule happened in 27 places was a clear indication of the lack of
\nbasic discipline and the sense or organizational order among
\nparty functionaries who were operating at a fairly high level.<\/p>\n
The second type of irregularity was the presence of district
\nrepresentation consisting of persons whose eligibility was
\nquestionable, while at the same time other persons from the same
\ndistricts were present claiming that they were the real
\nrepresentative of their district, but that they failed to obtain
\nthe necessary letters of credentials from their party superiors.<\/p>\n
In one case the violation of the rule was so blatant in that
\nthe representation of a district consisted of persons who were
\nnot even registered as official members of PDIP in that district,
\nwhile at the same time a number of persons who genuinely came
\nfrom that district and had been functioning as party officials
\nfor quite some time could not enter the premises of the congress
\nbecause they did not have the necessary credentials.<\/p>\n
This violation of basic organizational rules became so
\nembarrassing that a physical fight broke out between two
\ncontending delegates at the premises of the congress. Again it
\nwas very clear from these incidents that someone or a group of
\npersons, either at the provincial level or higher were trying to
\nget personal, financial or other kinds of benefit from this
\n\"political transaction.\"<\/p>\n
Against this background it was really a relief to hear this
\nbelated decision made by PDIP. Hopefully from now on PDIP will be
\nable to heal itself from this harmful political disease.<\/p>\n
What is the reaction of the rank and file within PDIP after
\nthis bold decision was announced? One reaction that reached me
\ndirectly was that of relief but also of skepticism and despair.<\/p>\n
Some members wondered why no punitive actions were taken
\nagainst party members who occupy positions within the higher
\nechelons of the party hierarchy, but have also been known to most
\nparty members as playing the same dirty game of money politics or
\nshowing a similar lack of party discipline. Why is such a good
\npolicy implemented in a discriminatory way?<\/p>\n
\"What will be the long term impact of such discriminatory
\npractice?\" someone asked me. \"I don't know,\" I said, \"but I think
\nit will depend upon the follow-up measures that will be taken in
\nthe immediate future.\"<\/p>\n
Is it only PDIP which is plagued by this particular disease?
\nAre the other political parties immune to this disease and
\ntherefore as clean as a whistle in this regard? Are there no
\npractices of trading political favors for money, big money, in
\nthe other political parties?<\/p>\n
Hopefully, but I am afraid the reality is uglier than what we
\nall wish.<\/p>\n
My skepticism is based upon my understanding that money
\npolitics or other forms of political malpractice that afflicts a
\nbig political party during any period in history is a cultural
\ndisease that affects the entire political system.<\/p>\n
If I am not mistaken in the history of any nation any form of
\n\"political pathology\" is a sign of a Zeitgeist, a spirit of the
\ntime, that dominates the entire nation for a given period of
\ntime.<\/p>\n
I do not think therefore that at the moment there is a
\npolitical party within our political system that has escaped this
\nZeitgeist of ours. Only a political party comprising saints can
\nresist any kind of political disease.<\/p>\n
Do we have the courage to acknowledge this fact?<\/p>\n
And if we do, what can we ordinary citizens do to prompt all
\npolitical parties toward measures to increase not only their
\norganizational morality, but their ideological maturity as well?<\/p>\n
Only after we have acquired insight into this question will it
\nbecome possible for us to pave the way toward a national
\npolitical life that is not annoying, but appeasing, assuring and
\npromising.<\/p>\n
The writer is an observer of social and political affairs.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/party-takes-bold-step-towards-maturity-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }