Deficit strikes again

In the wake of announcing that the United Development Party (PPP) is to convene a national congress next month, PPP chairman Ismail Hasan Metareum last week disclosed that his party needs at least Rp 1.5 billion for the convention but only has Rp 100 million in its coffers.

The rest of the story is predictable: The chairman appealed to the government to provide adequate help with the funding. "Without the government's contribution we will not be able to hold our congress", he reportedly said. He revealed that the State Secretariat had promised to contribute Rp 200 million; a far from sufficient amount.

Metareum also reminded people that in the past the government had always borne the costs of congresses held by the ruling political organization, Golkar, the PPP and the Indonesian Democratic Party, PDI. Now, for the umpteenth time, deficit strikes again and we are reading the same sad old story about a political party that is unable to hold a convention because it is short of funds.

Some people may argue that the source of the problem is that the political parties here are captives of the current political system which renders them unable to function as "real" parties -- free, to a certain extent, to accept donations, with card- carrying members who pay fees and with branches at all levels of society, including in villages.

But as a consequence of what is referred to as the "floating mass" system, one can clearly feel the presence of the political parties only once every five years, when they are about to convene a national congress, or before the general elections. Critics claim that the current system practically closes the door to the provision of adequate political education to the masses and blocks the path toward the growth of political party independence.

However, defenders of the present system argue that the current political format is best for a developing country which must concentrate on development by maintaining political stability. Too much political activity could presumably endanger stability.

Political debate aside, the fact that our political organizations -- with the exception of Golkar, which seems to have no financial problems -- must depend financially on the government should be amended. As things are the government has to assist the parties with monthly allowances. Even their headquarter buildings are donations from the government. How can a political party claim to be independent if it has to rely on government funds? How can congress delegates from the parties' regional chapters not feel indebted if they have to rely on the "charity" of local government authorities to enable them to travel and attend the congress?

True, one could always argue that the government's contribution to political parties is acceptable, or is even perfectly right since the money comes from state funds and is thus public property.

We believe, though, that one way or another we have to find ways to enable political parties to resolve their own financial problems. This could be done either by amending the current system or by improving the climate so that donors will not feel discouraged, or even frightened, to give contributions to any of the three existing political organizations.

At present, we are still in the process of formulating our Pancasila democracy and we believe that finding means to free our political parties should be part of the agenda.