A democratic multiparty system

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.