1995 elections 'hold clues for today'

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)