Tight rules reduce campaign to slogans<\/p>\n
The banning of banners and posters showing an alliance between
\nsupporters of the ousted Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) leader
\nMegawati Soekarnoputri and the United Development Party (PPP) has
\ndrawn criticism. Political scientist Syamsuddin Haris from the
\nIndonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) shares his views with The
\nJakarta Post.<\/p>\n
Question: What do you think of the government move? Do these
\nbanners and posters violate campaign rules?<\/p>\n
Answer: I think it's not clear enough what rules the
\ngovernment is referring to. I see it as a sign of panic because
\nthe government doesn't know who to blame. So it points the finger
\nat a poll contestant (PPP) like it was responsible.<\/p>\n
Q: Can you explain why?<\/p>\n
A: In Indonesia, poll contestants cannot be asked to take
\nresponsibility, because they don't have members. The floating
\nmass policy has prevented them from being made responsible. How
\ncan a political party be asked to be responsible for something
\ncommitted by the masses who are not members of the party?<\/p>\n
I agree with what Buya (nickname of PPP chief Ismail Hasan
\nMetareum) has said, that banners are people's own initiative.
\nTherefore, blame cannot be put on PPP's shoulders.<\/p>\n
Q: Does it mean that the floating mass policy, tenaciously held
\nby the government so far, has finally put it at a disadvantage?<\/p>\n
A: The policy was at first applied to individual people in
\npolitics, based on past unpleasant experiences. In practice, it
\nhas turned out to be a depoliticizing process. It's not politics
\nthat people are separated from, but nongovernment political
\nparties in order to lure them to Golkar.<\/p>\n
The policy is benefits the government, as the patron of the
\nruling party, because it can control the vote of the people.<\/p>\n
This shouldn't be done forever. The policy has to be
\nreevaluated. This should have been done a long time ago.
\nPolitical parties must be allowed to mobilize members. Experience
\nhas shown that without mass support, the government-backed PDI
\nfaction has had a difficult time surviving.<\/p>\n
There is always a point in time, as is evident from the
\nMegawati supporters' phenomenon, when voters need leaders who are
\nable to win their hearts, and not leaders who receive the
\ngovernment's blessing.<\/p>\n
Q: Could you elaborate on the advantages and the disadvantages of
\nthe floating mass policy?<\/p>\n
A: The policy is indeed advantageous for it makes economic
\ndevelopment more effective. Why? Because people, especially from
\na grassroots level, shy away from talking about politics. That
\nway, they can focus on economic development.<\/p>\n
Yet, it has its downside. It makes people politically
\ngullible. It can even make some politically blind. This explains
\nwhy people are easily mobilized by the elite (to vote for them).<\/p>\n
Had the policy not been misused, it could have brought a
\npositive political effect as well because it gives people freedom
\nto choose any party which best suits their aspirations.<\/p>\n
Q: Do you have any suggestions to deal with the problem?<\/p>\n
A: The floating mass policy has to be reevaluated and eventually
\nrevoked. Presently, people's participation in politics is only a
\nfew minutes-long every five years, when they cast their votes in
\npolling booths. The rest of the time, they are overpowered by
\nrepression. They need more time and space to express their
\npolitical aspirations.<\/p>\n
That explains why the four-week campaign period has been fully
\nexploited to do so. It's understandable why people violate the
\nrule banning vehicle convoys. It's a once-in-a-five-year moment
\nfor them.<\/p>\n
The fact that those trying to express their political
\naspirations outside the campaign period are being arrested,
\naccused of obstructing the government's program or banned from
\ngiving political lectures, has made people feel even more
\noppressed.<\/p>\n
Q: What do you think about the contents of campaign speeches so
\nfar?<\/p>\n
A: What the three parties have been doing so far is basically
\noffering slogans -- not programs as they are supposed to do. It's
\nbecause campaign rules ban them from criticizing government
\npolicies. In such a situation, there is nothing they can do
\nexcept offer slogans.<\/p>\n
There is actually nothing new with what the three parties are
\noffering. The five-year State Policy Guidelines (GBHN) have
\nexpressed it even more beautifully. Economic monopolies,
\ncollusion, corruption, capitalism, autonomous political parties,
\nclean government, justice, and the like are all there.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, these are not what the parties should deal with,
\nbecause they refer to matters at a legislative level. The
\nparties' field of work should be concentrated below that level,
\nthat is, at a policy level. What can political parties do when
\nthey are not allowed to criticize or evaluate government policy?<\/p>\n
Therefore it is campaign rules that make it impossible for
\npolitical parties to present programs instead of slogans for
\ntheir campaigns. (swa)<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/tight-rules-reduce-campaign-to-slogans-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}