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