1995 elections 'hold clues for today'

SEMARANG (JP): Believing the upcoming June 7, 1999 elections will differ significantly from those held between 1971 and 1997 by Soeharto's New Order regime, many have referred to the 1955 elections in search of clues.

Unlike the elections under Soeharto which were often dubbed a farce, the 1955 poll was believed to be successful in ensuring free and fair competition, although in the aftermath contesting parties became embroiled in conflicts.

Yogyakarta-based Gadjah Mada University guest lecturer Herbert Feith from the Australian National University explored the issue recently.

Question: What was the key to the 1955 general election, which went off democratically, safely and peacefully?

Answer: One was the fact that all parties were represented in the organizing committee. At that time, some local officials did try to force their will upon others in the interest of a certain party but these attempts were resisted by other parties, which reported this matter to government agencies of a higher level or to reporters.

Indeed, there were practices of intimidation by certain party leaders, particularly in small regions, villages or hamlets where this party secured a strong position. However, major parties could also set up their branches in many places. Also, the contesting parties monitored one another quite effectively.

Q: Why weren't voters confused by the big number (36) of contesting parties then?

A: They were at first, but this prompted many party activists to explain their programs to the general public. So, the general election was used as a means to select which parties could or could not collect votes in big numbers.

Q: Nevertheless, the elections failed to sustain the parliamentary democracy system. A few years later, the system was abandoned. Why?

A: This was indeed a great irony. Very fierce election campaigns were held for quite a long time and could have sharpened social conflicts in a number of regions. That there was obviously no significant political consensus during the campaigning period became more evident in the post-election period, namely during the 2nd Ali Sastroamidjojo cabinet (March 1956 - March 1957).

Of the four biggest winners of the 1955 elections, namely the Indonesian Nationalist Party (PNI), Masyumi, Nahdlatul Ulama and the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), all but PKI were represented in Ali's cabinet. Yet the conflict between PNI and Masyumi continued within the cabinet so that it grew to be weak.

This condition was fertile soil for a number of political actors, who felt that they had been discarded by the system of parliamentary democracy under (then) President Sukarno and the army leadership.

Q: How did the transition go from the system of parliamentary democracy to the system of guided democracy?

A: The actual transition took a long time to complete but the parliamentary system began to be shaky in mid-1956. At the time, there were a number of ethnic-based movements, like the Sundanese and the Minang movements. This resulted in great confusion ... especially because during the election campaigning there was no discourse on ethnicity except when anti-Chinese turmoil broke out. The 1955 elections... failed to introduce any changes.

Q: Will there be a reemergence of the sectarian tendency in the upcoming 1999 election?

A: I believe the sectarian pattern is still strongly in practice, particularly in Java.

So, in fact, there is no need to regret it. It is entirely all right to put the general election to the test in accordance with the knowledge of the electoral masses and also on the basis of the party programs. However, in this respect the factors of trust and suspicion will play a big role. Nevertheless, the factor of group loyalty will play a bigger role than party programs.

Take a farmer in East Java, for example. His kyai (religious teacher), who happens to be his uncle, recommends that he vote for PKB (the National Awakening Party). One of his neighbors, who is a junior high school teacher, recommends PAN (the National Mandate Party) to him. Then, a nephew of his, a university student leader, asks him to vote for Megawati Soekarnoputri-led PDI (Indonesian Democratic Party).

So his choice will be influenced by his personal relationships with the three persons much more than his confidence in the representatives of these three parties.

Q: And?

A: A person can be influenced by a personal relationship and also by his religious-cultural identity, namely whether he is closer to NU or Muhammadiyah or to the syncretic tradition of Marhaenism-Sukarnoism. So, never consider a voter ignorant or just following where the wind blows when casting his ballot.

Q: The 1999 poll will be held amid a deep economic crisis. Can we ever expect that it may contribute to reform and democratization?

A: The test is indeed tough. However... there are a number of (factors). First, as a result of the election campaigns, the position of the reform elements may be strengthened, stronger than those of the New Order.

Besides, there is an edifying factor in favor of the community in that they will get acquainted with political institutions which adhere to the principles of constitutional democracy. Nowadays, the public has begun to learn much about the institutions of democracy as a result of ongoing debates on a suitable and appropriate election system.

This learning process must be continued during the campaigning, among others by the electoral committee, the parties themselves, non-governmental organizations, independent election watchdog bodies, journalists and students. They all, in one way or another, will educate the voters.

Q: What do you think of the prospect of a constitutional democracy today, in comparison with the situation in 1955?

A: In 1955, institutions of constitutional democracy were in existence but they were "limping."

Tragically... what must be confronted now is how to re- establish and empower these institutions following two successively authoritarian administrations.

In the past 40 years there have been many changes... We have more urban people now. Besides, there is greater prosperity and our people have been much influenced by the globalized mass media. As a result, the class structure has undergone a change, too.

(What helps in reestablishing institutions of democracy) is contemplation about the bitter experiences under the two authoritarian governments, namely the Guided Democracy regime and the New Order regime.

Both regimes justified their acts in the name of Indonesian identity. Both have brought about only great disappointment. (Haryoso)