Deadlock in the House: Where will it lead us to?

Deadlock in the House: Where will it lead us to?

Mochtar Buchori, Jakarta

The House of Representatives (DPR) has been for days trapped
in a deadlock, after it tried to distribute leadership posts for
its commissions and auxiliary bodies among its ten factions. The
scene that emerged over the last few days is all too familiar to
me. Even from outside the chambers of the House, a tense
atmosphere can be felt.

What is this deadlock really about? Is it about fairness in
the distribution of leadership posts, or is it about a bigger
political issue, i.e. the consolidation of power among the
contesting coalitions within the House?

At the moment, it is still unclear what this internal tussle
is about. This political gambit, very likely, is in the end a
contest for political supremacy between the Nationhood Coalition
or the "opposition" camp, and the People's Coalition or the
"government" camp. Or, perhaps, it is a political contest that
takes place at a deeper level of our cultural fabric, i.e. a
replay of the old rivalry between the "nationalist" camp and the
"Islamic" camp. Whatever it is, it is a maneuver toward gaining
the upper hand during the next five years in the governance of
our society.

Suspicion does not arise only from witnessing the present
deadlock. It also comes from observing the way the House has been
acting vis-a-vis the government in handling the issue of who
should be appointed as new Indonesian Military (TNI) chief. The
House shows, in very unambiguous terms, that the President cannot
ignore it in such a crucial issue.

Checks and balances are a must in any democratic system, and
that opposition is therefore absolutely needed. But we are
concerned about the kind of opposition that is going to be
established. Will it be a system of opposition based on trust, or
will it be an opposition based on distrust?

These are two quite different kinds of opposition. An
opposition based on trust ends up sharing political burdens and
responsibilities, while an opposition based on distrust ends up
in what I would call "political nihilism." It is an opposition
designed just for the sake of "opposition".

Initially, there was hope that the new House would be a
political institution that was qualitatively better than the
previous one. I had a fairly great hope that the elimination of
"old" people like me would result in an invigorated body of
representatives. The elimination of candidates with fake diplomas
would make the new House a more intelligent assembly.

There was also an expectation that the new election system,
under which the public voted not only for a political party, but
also for the individuals who would represent it, would make the
new House more perceptive and responsive toward the interests and
aspirations of the people.

At the moment, however, I am not quite sure whether this hope
is well-founded. We may expect too big a change within a short
period of time. For a political institution as big as the House
to change from its old political habit of internal bickering and
a very parochial "vision and mission" to one that is
characterized by cooperation and mutual respect, requires a lot
of self-appraisal and a broader political view.

Such an effort cannot possibly succeed without a significant
shift in the cultural contour of the body politics. It must be
noted, in this regard, that the generations of politicians that
occupy the old and the new House are too close to one another in
terms of their educational and cultural backgrounds.

A number of "old" people from the old House have indeed been
eliminated, but among the younger members who are presently there
because they have been reelected, and the ones who are newcomers,
there is educationally and culturally speaking, very little
difference.

The new House will be more or less the same as the old one,
meaning that group and personal interests will come first, while
public interests will come to the fore only later on, after group
and personal interests are sufficiently satisfied.

So far, there is still no sign to suggest that this new House
has the potential to become a more intelligent and responsible
legislative assembly. If the allegations were proven true later
on, we would be facing political disorder -- if not chaos -- that
we might not be able to manage.

Just imagine what would happen if a president -- who had won
the trust of the majority of the people -- could not secure the
cooperation of elected politicians, and could not persuade them
to behave more responsibly -- while the people's trust in him
evaporated rapidly.

In such a condition, whatever our President did next, he would
be obstructed by political hurdles that were not necessarily
related to real problems, but the results of politically
motivated dilemmas. Have we really sunk that deep in our
political morality? In all fairness to the public at large, I
think to a large extent this difficult situation was created by
President Susilo himself, i.e. by being so indecisive, and
wavering in his responses to the political bluffs called by his
"supporters" at the very beginning of his administration.

Or, is it possible that the present situation is the result of
unhealthy leadership at all levels since 1998? Namely, that
instead of applying "transforming leadership", i.e. the type of
leadership whereby leaders persuade their followers to work
together to bring about real cultural, political, and economic
changes, we have excessively -- if not solely -- applied
"transactional leadership" that is strongly inclined toward
political horse trading?

While it is clear that the people, as a whole, have moved into
a new phase in our efforts to become a democratic nation, our
politicians seem to be locked still in the habits of the old
political culture, i.e. emphasizing dexterity in manipulating
public sentiment, but neglecting to learn to respond wisely to
public needs and aspirations -- as expected from politicians with
a grain of statesmanship. At the end of the day, the puzzling
question to me is: Which force will in the end prevail? The force
that emanates from the zeitgeist, the climate of our era, or the
rusty and inhibiting force that comes from an outdated political
culture?

Whatever the answer, I am quite confident that our politicians
-- especially the younger ones -- are capable of learning new
political arts and skills during their tenures. Only through the
gathering of new knowledge and skills can they lead our nation
toward becoming a respectable member of the community of nations.

The writer was a House member for the 1999-2004 period