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.