A democratic multiparty system

By Mulyana W. Kusumah

JAKARTA (JP): Indonesia is witnessing the blooming of new political parties, a phenomenon virtually beyond any political prediction a short time ago.

Aside from the Democratic People's Party (which was banned by the government) and the Indonesian Democratic Union Party, set up in 1996, some 20 new political parties have now made the light of day.

They include the Indonesian National Educational Party, the Indonesian People Party, the Indonesian Workers' Party, the Indonesian Reform Party, the Indonesian Women's Party, the New Masyumi, the MKGR Party, Nahdlatul Ummat, the Party of East Indonesian People's Sovereignty, the Ulema Functional Party and even the Chinese-Indonesian for Reform Party.

Parties already fused to existing parties, such as the former Murba Party and the Indonesian Islamic League Party, and certain proreform quarters, are also ready to establish new parties. Many other social groups and organizations also have something in common: They want to actualize themselves politically through their own parties.

Although the 1945 Constitution never refers to "political parties", a prevailing decree of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) and Law No. 3/1985 on political parties and Golkar only recognize the presence of two parties aside from Golkar, and the demand for reform in the political system has apparently been kicked off with the establishment of parties.

In this respect, even President B.J. Habibie has said that anybody can set up a new party as long as it does not contradict the five-point state ideology Pancasila and the Constitution and stays away from issues related to ethnicity, religion, race and intergrouping.

In a democratic political system, a party performs a number of functions, some of which are:

* A political institution linking the power holders and the people.

* A vehicle by which sociopolitical interests are articulated and aggregated.

* A means for political socialization and recruitment.

* A mechanism to institutionally accommodate social conflicts.

During the Soeharto administration, parties were very weak in performing such functions. Parties could never get themselves free of government control through a number of policies and power-related practices, varying from the subtlest to the crudest, such as the one causing the disputed replacement of Indonesian Democratic Party executives in 1996.

A "political fostering" concept, confirmed by laws, such as Law No. 5/1974 on the principles of regional administrations, was effectively put into practice by the government and local administrations, while the "floating mass" policy was deliberately designed to keep the people away from political parties. One's political career in a party depended very much on the closeness of one's relations with the government.

Also, the bargaining power of parties was very weak in determining their representatives in the House of Representatives (DPR) and the MPR and in resisting pressures to recall their representatives. The political system which restricted the functions and the role of parties continued to be applied until moments after Soeharto resigned from his presidency on May 21.

The role of parties was taken over by various groups of political lobbyists with direct access to the center of power and party leaders were less powerful than community figures capable of articulating popular demand. Parties also moved too slowly to respond to proreform movements.

Increasing chances and wider political choices offered by Habibie during his early days of administration have led to the emergence of new political actors and aroused the spirit of old crack-political actors to establish, along with their supporters, a new "political identity" as manifested in a party.

The problem now is not simply a matter of legality, such as the revocation of MPR decrees which recognize only two parties plus Golkar, neither is it just a necessity to amend a number of laws. Most importantly, critical evaluation must be made to find out whether these new parties are capable of gathering support within a relatively short span of time.

It seems that the masses, as the legitimacy basis of a party, have not shown any interest, let alone enough trust, to support either old or new parties.

As a very bad impact of the Soeharto administration's strategy of depoliticization, the politics of violence might be applied to those engaged in political practices differing from those of the power holder, and political doubts might pose as constraints to parties in recruiting members or followers.

It must also be borne in mind that the development of a multiparty system may give rise to the following conditions.

* The emergence of divisions in pluralism when cultural and emotional commitments and loyalty to religion, race, ethnicity and ideologies have become the frame of reference of values in the establishment of new parties. Such a tendency does appear as a background to the birth of some new parties.

* New parties can always pave the way for the restoration of Soeharto's authoritarian regime if they are used to accommodate either factionalism of the old regime or reactionary elements. It is interesting to note that most of the founders of the new parties are not those in the front ranks of proreform forces -- they were previously known a supporters of the old regime. The proreform quarters seem to be in doubt as to whether they should consolidate their victory by establishing parties.

* New parties may engage themselves in competition to share "political luck" among themselves or with effective groups of lobbyists when the old regime has really collapsed, or they may also give rise to political conspiracies which manipulate people's sovereignty.

* If they fail to mobilize mass support or accommodate the aspirations of the masses, this failure may become a good reason to justify the old party system.

However, the impact of the presence of new parties must be anticipated without having to postpone the drawing up of a national consensus and legal basis for a democratic multiparty system.

The reform movement toward a democratic multiparty system must be geared toward the establishment of parties with a real mass basis. Parties must be representative and responsible to their constituents and their leaders must be able to fight for people's strategic interests. Only such parties will be able to recruit supporters in a short time and compete with honesty in the coming general election.

In this context, it is necessary to speed up legal and political recognition of newly established parties.

The benefits of passing this recognition are that, on the one hand, the government will not have to pay greater attention to the aspirations of groups claiming themselves as acting on behalf of the people or for the sake of reform, and on the other hand, that the process of making people more politically aware and mature will be intensified.

The writer is a lecturer at the University of Indonesia's School of Social and Political Sciences, and secretary-general of the Indonesian Independent Committee of Election Monitoring.

Window: Most importantly, critical evaluation must be made to find out whether these new parties are capable of gathering support within a relatively short span of time.