RI political system needs changes<\/p>\n
By Hendrajit<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): A prominent expert on Indonesia, Dr. William
\nLiddle, once said that there will be a great vacuum and pervasive
\nuncertainty in the country if President Soeharto steps down from
\npower.<\/p>\n
"The current political situation which has deprived the
\nIndonesian public of experience with democracy and managing
\ndifferences of opinions has led to this lack of preparation," he
\nsaid during a recent visit here.<\/p>\n
Liddle's assessment is very understandable. Indonesian
\npolitics is heavily concentrated in a few hands. The dominant
\npolitical institution is the bureaucracy. Other political
\ninstitutions, such as the House of Representatives, political
\ngroups and independent interest groups are very weak and unable
\nto balance or check the power of the bureaucracy.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, political competition is limited largely to
\nmaneuvers within the bureaucratic elite itself and between rival
\nfactions and personalities. In these circumstances, political
\nstruggle is not really concerned with issues, policies and
\nideologies. Rather, the ultimate goal is power and preserving the
\nsystem.<\/p>\n
The authoritarian tendency of our current political system
\ndates back to the early days of the New Order administration in
\nthe mid 1960s. The supporters of the new government believed that
\neconomic development seems to require a maximum level of
\npolitical stability. In other words, political order and economic
\ndevelopment are seen as two sides of the same coin.<\/p>\n
A central element of the thinking of men who came to power
\nafter 1965 has been that popular politics is dangerous, that the
\npolitical energies of the masses which were released in 1945 and
\nplayed so large a role in the politics of the next 20 years, need
\nto be suppressed. From then on, the policy of the government can
\nbe explained in one word: Depoliticization. It is a policy of
\nmaking politics taboo and of discouraging people from involvement
\nin any kind of politics. At the same time, the power center
\nreorganized and revamped its own party, Golkar, transforming it
\ninto the country's most powerful party.<\/p>\n
It is in this perspective that the five bills on political
\ndevelopment in 1985 should be understood. Law no. 1 on general
\nelections; Law no. 2 on the structure and position of the
\nPeople's Consultative Councils, the House of Representatives, and
\nthe Provincial House of Representatives; Law no. 3 on political
\nparties and the functional group; Law no. 5 on referendums; and
\nLaw no. 8 on societal organizations represent the final attempts
\nof the power center at restructuring the political system.<\/p>\n
The five bills touched the very essence of the right to
\norganize, and therefore drew a great deal of attention and
\nconcern.<\/p>\n
With regard to the Law no. 3\/1985, it is clear that no other
\npolitical groups, besides the Moslem-based United Development
\nParty (PPP), the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) and Golkar,
\ncan be established. In practice, the PPP and PDI face more
\nproblems, such as in organizing political gatherings. Regional
\nand national meetings of virtually all organizations, including
\npolitical groups, must have the government's permission.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, the ruling Golkar has never had such
\ndifficulties. The PPP and PDI have to separate themselves from
\ntheir constituents in the countryside as a consequence of the
\nfloating mass policy. For the people, politics comes into their
\nlives only once every five years during the elections.<\/p>\n
Golkar has no problem with its constituents because of its
\nnationwide network of every civil servant. In many regions, one
\ncan find areas free of political groups.<\/p>\n
The floating mass policy continues but Law no. 3\/1985 remains
\nunchanged. It is therefore logical that the political groups will
\nweaken while Golkar becomes more powerful in Indonesia's non-
\ncompetitive one party system.<\/p>\n
In the early years of the New Order, the political stability
\nreasoning is supported by a broad swath of society especially the
\ncivilian bureaucrat, military and business community. In a
\nstrictly controlled political system, businesspeople are able to
\nmeet their business interests as long as they have an access to
\nbureaucracy. The urban middle class has opposed the anti-populist
\nmovement since the late 1960s. But three decades later, the
\nchallenges have changed. The new concerns are economic
\ncompetitiveness, wealth inequalities, human rights and political
\npluralism.<\/p>\n
Therefore, flogging national stability and national security
\nis no longer seen as the best approach. It means that we now need
\nto have a different outlook in understanding the relationship
\nbetween democracy and economic growth. Nowadays, democracy and
\neconomic growth are no longer exclusive to one another. Economic
\ndevelopment cannot be considered successful if the achievements
\nof economic growth and equitable distribution come at the expense
\nof massive violations of human rights and democracy.<\/p>\n
A different outlook is necessary because economic development
\nhas created profound societal changes. A middle class of
\nprofessionals and white-collar employees are forming. The move
\nfrom a state-directed economic policy to a greater emphasis on
\nprivate sector led growth has given way to a self-confident urban
\nmiddle class, having more leverage and rising demand. The
\nactivities of major NGOs, trade union and university students are
\nreflective of how important they are in influencing state
\nactivities. In short, the transformation of Indonesia's economy
\nhas in turn led to the growing pressures for change.<\/p>\n
The problem is, while society and the economy are being
\ntransformed, Indonesia's political system remains unchanged.
\nTherefore, it is only logical that the most substantial issue
\nfacing Indonesia today is political change rather than
\npresidential succession.<\/p>\n
It is widely known that the main agenda of democratization in
\nIndonesia is a process of opening up the political system and
\nmaking society a less submissive partner to the state. It is
\ntimely for Indonesian people to call for a campaign to put people
\non equal basis before the law, to have an objective rule of law
\ndetached from the power of the state, to allow people to speak
\nopenly, and finally to guarantee the lives of the minorities.<\/p>\n
Others see democracy as basically a set of institutional
\nchanges: a freely elected House, newspapers and courts which do
\nnot bow to pressure from the government, checks and balances,
\nfreedom of assembly, minority rights and so on. Democracy, in the
\ntrue sense, means the rule of the people in some organized way.
\nIt suggests regular elections which is fair and just and a system
\nof government, in which the proceedings of the executive power
\nare subject to House control. It means that parliament should be
\nstronger and independent.<\/p>\n
Democracy, in other words, stands for the solution of tensions
\nand contradictions within a society in peaceful means. Democracy
\nhas something to do with government by the people, with
\nmeaningful popular participation in the making of important
\ndecisions. If that is so, Golkar and its rivals, PPP and PDI,
\nshould really stand on the same level. If that happens, it would
\nshow that representative democracy is not as dangerous to the
\nsociopolitical structure which has been established since 1965 as
\nthe supporters of the status quo have suggested.<\/p>\n
Currently, many middle class leaders believe that public
\nparticipation in politics is what the struggle for independence
\nwas all about and it is enshrined in the 1945 Constitution. This
\nis exactly why it is timely for the nation to revise the Laws on
\npolitical development, especially Law no. 3\/1985 on political
\nparties and Golkar and Law no. 8\/1985 on societal organizations.
\nThese laws have strengthened the power center but weakened
\nsociety and the political groups.<\/p>\n
The writer is a freelance journalist and political observer
\nbased in Jakarta.<\/p>\n
Window: Therefore, it is only logical that the most substantial
\nissue facing Indonesia today is political change rather than
\npresidential succession.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/ri-political-system-needs-changes-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}