People's representatives or party representatives?<\/p>\n
The politicians who prevailed in our first free election in 44
\nyears may continue to erode our trust, but Indonesians must keep
\ntheir faith in the democratic process.<\/p>\n
As discussions among experts often suggests, the trouble with
\nour democracy may not lie in the absence of the rule of law, but
\nrather with those who are running it -- those with little virtue.<\/p>\n
We repeatedly hear our representatives self-righteously
\nclaiming to speak on behalf of \"the people's interest\".<\/p>\n
But our elected officials, admittedly, are not agents of the
\nvoting public. Instead, they are token figures of the parties
\nwhich ushered them in.<\/p>\n
False perceptions of their elite positions make many people
\nforget that their presence in the legislative chambers is, in
\ntruth, to serve the public interest.<\/p>\n
Their feeble oversight breeds politics at its worst, with
\nparties sabotaging each other, or making backroom deals purely
\nfor personal benefit.<\/p>\n
What is needed is not merely the facade of representation, but
\nthe actual extension of political aspirations -- both in the
\nlegislative and executive branches.<\/p>\n
The key to this answer lies in the systematic change of our
\nelectoral system which, in the words of one panelist, could
\nensure \"infallible representation and accountability of our
\npublic officials.\"<\/p>\n
But before we can even contemplate appropriate change, we must
\nface the daunting challenge that the supposed stewards of such
\nreform are the very products of our flawed system.<\/p>\n
The constitution and other laws, in essence, are a social
\ncontract between the people and the state.<\/p>\n
They function to limit excess of power; and one of the
\nbranches of government they ought to keep in check is both the
\npower of the House of Representatives and the People's
\nConsultative Assembly.<\/p>\n
Thus, how can we entrust such radical change in the name of
\ndemocracy with members of the very institution which it is
\nsupposed to place limitations on?<\/p>\n
In their objections, our elected representatives always say
\nthat, in any democracy, people are free to have differing
\nopinions -- including on questions of electoral reform.<\/p>\n
But an elected representative, they say, has a direct contract
\nwith the voter, and must heed public desire for change.<\/p>\n
The public does not have the equal power of the
\nrepresentative, but the representative is, in fact, the servant
\nof the constituent.<\/p>\n
Moreover, \"the concept of representation is not understood,\" a
\npanelist said.<\/p>\n
Examples of this can be seen in how parties filter their
\ncandidates for election.<\/p>\n
\"We don't know if someone was appointed candidate because the
\nperson was somebody's spouse or son,\" a panelist said.<\/p>\n
\"We found more than 100 members of the House in the 1999
\nelection who moved districts, so they could get the necessary
\nvotes to get elected,\" the panelist continued.<\/p>\n
\"This while the election was supposedly a semi-district system
\nin which the candidates should have been from the district in
\nwhich they were nominated from.\"<\/p>\n
They were moved \"for political convenience by their party's
\ncentral board ... so it was done without the intention of
\naccommodating people's aspirations,\" the panelist continued.<\/p>\n
We must now seek to infuse democracy into part of the internal
\nmechanism of party politics.<\/p>\n
If not, then we may wind up leaving the fate of the country in
\nthe hands of political parties that defy democratic principles.<\/p>\n
Certain conditions, such as barring single candidate nominees
\nin internal party elections, can be imposed through laws to
\nensure this process.<\/p>\n
Political parties would, no doubt, argue that this is unfair
\npublic intervention in internal party affairs.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, it could be said that political parties
\nseeking office are public institutions and should be open for
\nsuch scrutiny.<\/p>\n
Political parties also currently receive subsidies from public
\nmoneys making public accountability valid.<\/p>\n
Under the current system, parties participating in the 1999
\ngeneral election received Rp 1,000 for every vote they obtained.<\/p>\n
A party like the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle is
\nentitled to about Rp 37.5 billion; Golkar, Rp 22.5 billion.<\/p>\n
One of the most widely touted proposals, which has also been
\nagreed to, in principle, by the representatives are direct
\npresidential elections.<\/p>\n
Such elections, it is hoped, would engender participatory
\ndemocracy while diminishing the distortions of the system we now
\nhave, whereby a president is not elected by a popular vote.<\/p>\n
A publicly elected president would have a stronger mandate and
\nwould be held more accountable to the people.<\/p>\n
More importantly, this arrangement would free the president
\nfrom political obligations to individual parties, a prevalent
\nissue during the last two presidencies.<\/p>\n
One major concern is that more established political parties,
\nnamely Golkar, would have an unfair advantage, given their wide
\nnetwork, and seemingly endless resources.<\/p>\n
One elitist argument dictates that direct elections are
\ninappropriate, given the low degree of education among the
\nIndonesian people and their limited consciousness of politics.<\/p>\n
But let's not forget that this limited consciousness follows
\n32 years of political repression under the New Order.<\/p>\n
Indeed, political parties themselves remain autocratic and
\nwillfully neglect to educate their constituents, in ways in which
\nto become involved in politics in a rational manner.<\/p>\n
The fact is that the 1999 general election, which held
\npotential for bloodshed, was praised by observers as one of the
\ncountry's most democratic and peaceful -- which also defeats the
\nargument that the people are not ready.<\/p>\n
There are two options available: first, a president and vice
\npresident in one package who are elected by the voting public
\nwith a majority. Second, two pairs are elected by a popular vote,
\nand the Assembly chooses one of the two.<\/p>\n
The first option is clearly the better; but what happens if a
\ncandidate falls short of a majority? Does the Assembly then have
\nthe right to choose the victor?<\/p>\n
Thus direct presidential elections, more than anything else,
\nare today mired in the question about the role of Assembly -- the
\nvery institution needed to approve electoral reform.<\/p>\n
The Assembly seems intent on somehow preserving its
\ninvolvement in the presidential and vice presidential elections.<\/p>\n
Panelists in the discussion voiced little faith in the overall
\nprocess if left to the Assembly.<\/p>\n
But efforts to refer the matter of electoral\/constitutional
\nreform to a public commission have been rejected.<\/p>\n
\"Any efforts for improvement would be nothing more than horse
\ntrading,\" a panelist said. \"Members of the House and the Assembly
\nwould enter into deals not for the public good, but for the
\npreservation of their own political interests.\"<\/p>\n
\"This can only be cured by a movement from civil society --
\nbut our civil society is still weak,\" the panelist added. \"One
\neffective mechanism, for now, is through independent watchdogs
\nand groups.\"<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/peoples-representatives-or-party-representatives-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}