Can the 2004 election bring about real change?

Can the 2004 election bring about real change?

Benny Susetyo, Cultural Observer, Malang, East Java

The question above is oft-repeated but still retains its
significance and needs reflecting upon, particularly in view of
the pessimism of many parties that the polls this year will not
bring much change to the state of the nation.

Even if there were any changes, they would not be of much
significance because the public has clearly seen that the same
old faces from the past will be many of the figures that form the
lineup of the country's new leaders or political elite.

"These old faces" are known to have failed in establishing a
political system that sides with public welfare. The legislation
that they have produced is frequently aimed at strengthening
their position rather than that of the people.

The irony arising from this situation is that, whether
deliberately or otherwise, the country's legislation has been
drafted in a way that will negate popular participation. The
worst consequence of this is that House Representatives members
have stunted people's sovereignty. Like it or not, that is a
central feature of this year's polls.

This pessimism has been felt since the early days of
preparation for the polls. Poll results published in Kompas on
Dec. 1, 2003, for example, discovered similar pessimism. The
results showed that the public had their doubts about the ability
of the new political parties to introduce change. As much as two-
thirds of the respondents in this poll were not sure that the new
parties would be able to fight for popular aspirations.

A large proportion of the respondents (40.4 percent) said they
were not interested in voting for any new political party because
in their opinion the new parties could neither improve the
quality of established parties nor the state of the nation nor
produce suitable leaders. If the parties fail to enjoy the trust
of the public, can the elite ever be trusted? This is a major
question, the answer to which will be seen in the poll results on
April 5, 2004.

This phenomenon, however, has not come as a big surprise and
was detected from early on. The practice by political parties of
paying attention to the public only in the months close to
polling day and forgetting them when they enjoy power,
particularly by issuing policies that often disadvantage the
public, has led to public antipathy towards these parties.

Not surprisingly, many have commented that the election
campaigns have failed to produce an enthusiastic response from
the public. The crowds of people filling the streets and public
places during elections campaigns have not been genuine party
supporters.

Most were there not to listen to campaigners making sweet
promises, but rather to enjoy the musical performances that go
with the campaigns. It is also public knowledge that many of them
were paid simply to allow political parties to claim to the
public that they were major parties with a large number of
supporters and consequently the public should vote for them.

It is this reality that has led to public pessimism that this
year's polls will bring about any significant change. To the
public, the legislation produced has simply led to the emergence
of major political parties with doubtful qualifications. This
doubt is reinforced when major political parties contesting the
elections give more prominence to entertainment than to a clear
action program.

This situation shows that political parties do not have a
clear priority list for the establishment of a system of
democracy. In fact, a system of democracy will run only if a
political civilization is at work. The latter is evident in
political behavior that prioritizes common sense rather than
simple emotional sentiment.

As James Siegel, a political anthropologist with a great
interest in Indonesia, has put it, after the demise of Sukarno,
nobody has come out as the spokesperson of the people. The result
of his study is quite surprising to the public as it shows that,
in reality, popular sovereignty has long gone and has been
replaced by monetary sovereignty. How could this have happened?
The answer is that the political elite has fed the public with
conviction, not knowledge.

This conviction has been propagated via issues related to
ethnicity, religious background, race and social groups and to
ideology, which, to borrow the term introduced by one of the
world's greatest psychologists, Sigmund Freud, is infantile in
character. Political parties are still at the oral phase of their
development. They are still seeking self-satisfaction.

It is this orientation that has made the political parties
contesting the elections show simply their reactive response to
real problems. They have raised issues supposedly concerned with
environmental concerns but purely arouse the emotions of their
masses.

These political parties rarely, if ever, feed their
constituents with sufficient information about their qualified,
committed, well-reasoning and morally good legislative
candidates. Their efforts are focused only on the symbol of the
parties, not on their reality.

The artificiality that gains prominence during these campaigns
is evidence that our political parties are devoid of a vision for
pulling Indonesia out of its ongoing crisis. Given the
disappearance of good, correct political behavior and sense, the
nation has found it difficult to escape the crisis.

Politics is a noble task that strives for the realization of
common prosperity. This task and responsibility is exercised
under the principle of honoring human dignity, freedom, justice,
solidarity, fairness, democracy, equality and responsibility as a
member of a society and country. In many areas, the political
parties that will participate in the polls have increasingly
ignored this principle.

In this country, politics is understood only as a means to
reach or maintain power. Alternatively, it is an arena of
struggle for power and money alone. The people are often used as
a means simply to justify power.

Considerations in policies are not geared toward fostering the
values of humanity and justice but are oriented toward activities
that bring about misery for the people and lead to the erosion of
public confidence. As a result, the public has become apathetic
and indifferent to anything related to the general elections.

This reality should be a mirror for the political elite to
show that they should no longer sell conviction alone. The
conviction that they have been selling is no longer attractive to
the public as the public needs change, not just sweet promises.
Change will only take place if the public is properly informed
about the root cause of all the problems that the country
currently faces. The problem now is whether or not political
parties will be courageous enough to sell knowledge, and not
conviction.

Hopefully, there will be no more lies between us.