Deficit strikes again

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.