Will new parties bring democracy?<\/p>\n
By Yulius P. Hermawan<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): While the new law on political parties has not
\nbeen formulated yet, enthusiasm for establishing new parties has
\nled to the creation of new political alignments in Indonesia.
\nSeveral mass organizations have proclaimed the formation of new
\nparties (see article written by I. Haryanto, Jakarta Post on June
\n6, 1998). Others are still thinking about forming parties, and
\nlook likely to do so soon.<\/p>\n
This phenomenon indicates that political parties are seen as
\nessential to the \"reform order\". Broadly speaking, in Western
\ndemocracy there is little doubt that political parties play a
\nconsiderable role in establishing stable democratic politics.
\nTheir functions include articulating and aggregating interests,
\nand organizing and promoting candidates for governmental office
\nthrough general elections.<\/p>\n
Yet, some questions need to be considered further: will new
\nalignments in the pretransitional process really bring about
\ndemocratization? How can political parties improve
\ndemocratization in a country which for many years suffered from
\nauthoritarianism?<\/p>\n
There are at least three theoretical reasons why these
\nquestions matter. The first reason is that, in many former
\nauthoritarian countries, political parties tend to lack
\nexperience in democratic tradition because they had little or no
\nchance to learn and practice democracy due to the implementation
\nof authoritarian rules.<\/p>\n
The lack of such political experience may lead parties to make
\npolitical mistakes and misjudgments in early phases of party
\nformation. These mistakes and misjudgments inevitably affect
\nparties' political behavior in new political circumstances.
\nMoreover, while political parties lost their chance to learn
\ndemocratic traditions, they were forced to support the
\nauthoritarian regime or, if they did not do so, they were
\ndisbanded.<\/p>\n
The lack of experience as regards to democratic procedures and
\nparties' habits of operating in a nondemocratic environment
\nduring an authoritarian era inevitably affect how, and to what
\nextent, parties promote democratization in the first stages of
\nthe transition. Having struggled to oppose authoritarianism,
\nparties will now experience difficulty in negotiating with other
\nparties or the government when they once had to accept proposals
\npresented by their counterparts.<\/p>\n
Compromising may be difficult for parties who for many years
\nexperienced various refusals from the authoritarian regime. If
\nthey fail to win support for their proposals, they may engage in
\nextra-legislative actions, such as hunger strikes, boycotting the
\nlegislature or being absent from decision-making situations
\nrather than accepting others' proposals. Consequently their
\nactivities may hinder democratization.<\/p>\n
The transition to democracy in South Korea shows how difficult
\nit is for parties to practice democratic principles in the
\ntransitional period. South Korean parties often reached a
\ndeadlock when negotiating proposals because each party wanted
\ntheir proposals to be accepted. Opposition parties then boycotted
\nparliament and hindered the ruling party's assemblymen in
\nentering parliament. Taiwan and some countries in southern Europe
\nare other instances that show similar problems.<\/p>\n
Second, while parties have to adjust to new traditions, they
\nface a real problem as regards the uncertainty of new
\ncircumstances. Even though a set of rules has been introduced (or
\nremains in the making), it may not guarantee the certainty of new
\npolitics. The rules may be changed or remain open to debate.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, the democratic political system is still \"absent\"
\nor is a provisional one as an alternative for achieving the
\nchange from an authoritarian political system. Accordingly, while
\nthey deal with the formation of parties, they have to be
\nconcerned also with the establishment of a certain type of
\npolitical system. Yet the negotiations between remaining elements
\nof the authoritarian system and opposition parties to adopt a
\ncertain new kind of political system becomes essential in the
\nfirst stage of democratization.<\/p>\n
The negotiation may raise another problem because each party
\nwould attempt to implement a type of system which it considers
\nwould strengthen its own position in the new politics. In this
\nsense, their preferences may create a serious obstacle to the
\nestablishment of a stable democratic system.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the absence of a well-institutionalized party system
\ncreates a serious problem as well. The party system reflects the
\npattern of competition and cooperation between different parties
\nas well as the distribution of strength among existing political
\nparties. The transitional period becomes an era which leads to
\nthe formation of a party system.<\/p>\n
Since contesting polls and political participation are
\nguaranteed in a democracy, the party system emerges out of
\ncompeting parties. The competition among parties determines which
\nparty may exist and which one collapses, depending on the number
\nof votes they gain in general elections. The party system in a
\ndemocracy is not created merely by the government or any other
\ninstitution, but it develops from the political constellation
\nformed by competing parties. Once it emerges, it is influenced by
\nthe state as well as by political parties.<\/p>\n
The genesis of a party system may look simple. In fact, the
\npolitics of coalition-making among parties and the politics of
\nseparation of coalition parties make the creation of a party
\nsystem a complex and uncertain issue. Despite the vulnerability
\nfor factional strife within coalitions, political parties often
\nattempt to form a coalition. They see the formation of a
\ncoalition as an inevitable path to fulfill requirements set by
\nlaw or to counter other parties' moves in the legislative body,
\nsince such a coalition means the accumulation of power for the
\nparty within the legislature.<\/p>\n
Once a coalition is formed, it has to deal with the problem of
\nconsolidation. The cohesiveness of a coalition is questionable
\nsince the differences among those forming it tend to be difficult
\nto overcome. Consequently, factional disputes become a latent
\nproblem, and can even dissolve a coalition. The party system
\ncannot be secured and remains fluid. This situation may lead to
\nuncertainties in a new democratic system.<\/p>\n
Third, political parties are often created around \"charismatic
\nleaders\" whose popularity evolved during the authoritarian era.
\nThe parties' cohesiveness then will be influenced by these
\nleaders. The popularity of the leaders will also become an
\nattribute which plays a major role in vote gathering in general
\nelections. This will bring about the so-called personalism-
\ncentered politics.<\/p>\n
There should be a clear-cut mechanism which determines to what
\nextent party leaders may exert their influence within their
\nparty. However, there is another obstacle. In the transitional
\nperiod, the popular figures would remain powerful for both
\ncohesiveness and the party's popularity. The question is how the
\nfigures themselves perceive the significance of their party for
\nreal politics? In many cases, the figures see their parties as a
\ntool for achieving the top political spot. They then would take
\nany chance to hold governmental office, by exerting their
\ninfluence within their parties. If they did so, it would be
\nanother serious obstacle to democratization.<\/p>\n
How can democracy be established under these circumstances?
\nCan political parties, especially undemocratic ones, improve
\ndemocratization in the country?<\/p>\n
Two hypothetical propositions may be presented to asses the
\nextent to which democracy may be established.<\/p>\n
First, political parties need to be organized democratically
\nso that they may improve democratization. The more democratic
\npolitical parties there are, the more democratic the country is
\nlikely to be. The explanation is simple; it is considered
\nimpossible to democratize a country if its political parties do
\nnot practice democratic principles within party organizations.
\nBeing a proponent of democratization means getting used to
\ndemocratic principles. To get used to those principles is only
\npossible if parties implement those principles within their
\norganizations. Hence, political parties should be created and
\norganized on a democratic basis. In fact, this is not a simple
\nmatter for either well established or newly established parties.<\/p>\n
The second proposition suggests that parties do not need to be
\ninternally democratic so long as they are committed to acting
\ndemocratically outside their organization. Democratically
\norganized parties may develop simultaneously with the
\nimplementation of democratic principles in the country. This
\nproposition indicates that parties' cohesiveness is more
\nimportant than how democratic the parties are. So long as they
\nact cohesively in competition with other parties, they may
\npromote the implementation of democratic principles. Moreover,
\nthe cohesiveness of parties is very important, since parties have
\nto compete with others to win general elections or to gain enough
\nlegislative seats to have influence in the new political system.
\nHence, performance outside the organization is more important
\nthan performance within the organization.<\/p>\n
The formation of parties at the initial stage of
\ndemocratization may justify the second proposition. The most
\nimportant party's task is to gain enough seats in the legislative
\nbody, so that the party may be permitted to survive. Yet another
\nproblem arises. When the democratic manner in competition does
\nnot prove helpful in acquiring votes, so-called money politics
\nmay be considered as a breakthrough. The new law on political
\nparties could set a limit on campaign funds. However, it would
\nnot prove helpful if parties concerned only with seat-gathering
\nused any means to show that they do not break the law.<\/p>\n
There is no need to be overly skeptical about the rise of new
\npolitical parties. However, many new political tasks may need to
\nbe handled well. This is to say that establishing democracy is
\nnot simple. Without commitment to establishing a rule on
\ndemocratic competition and respecting this rule in its
\nimplementation, new political alignments will further deepen
\npolitical uncertainty.<\/p>\n
The author is a Monash University graduate and lecturer on
\npolitical science at the Catholic University of Parahyangan and
\nresearcher at Parahyangan Center for International Studies,
\nBandung.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/will-new-parties-bring-democracy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}