Democracy is for democrats

Democracy is for democrats not for autocrats let alone bureaucrats or technocrats. But who knows times may have changed. A great bureaucrat and famous technocrat like President Habibie has touched on something that only true democrats would have raised in their speech.

When addressing members of the National Elections Committee he appealed to the newly formed as well as old political parties to "accept gallantly whatever result the general elections bring."

He meant that whatever votes each party might collect, it should accept the result with an open heart, implying that sometimes you win and other times you lose in politics.

Frankly speaking, this is a new voice and a different philosophy of power-sharing. The big question is now, 'Does he himself believe what he says? Would he accept it if the functional group (Golkar) gets less than expected? In that case, many of the present incumbents may well have to step down, including Habibie himself. Or are Golkar's strategists such as Akbar Tandjung so sure that they will win the elections with at least 50 percent of the votes.

Sure, Golkar's front is ready to accept victory based on their superior infrastructure in rural areas and on their unlimited and uncontrolled resources, although this has been denied. A reader has rightly commented that Golkar would deserve to receive a "red card" were it a soccer match. The present problems and crises are the result of Golkar's mistakes and political misbehavior leading to economic malaise and social upheavals. Just taking part in the election and wishing to win should be seen as a moral sin. But in politics such things seem not to exist so long as you can grab power and stay there. Golkar's strategists evidently do not see that losing or winning confronts Golkar with unsurmountable problems for there are no such things as seasonal democrats or instant democrats.

Now that it calls itself a political party, Golkar... Golkar will function more effectively as state machinery and a state party, thus further away from a truly democratic party. It will later tolerate nothing that will not strengthen its hold on power and legislation.

Already there is enough proof that its hold on the judiciary is strong. Moreover, mental change in just one or two years from authoritarian bureaucracy to democratic way of life is not possible.

Democracy is for true democrats not the half-hearted. In a sense, the head of state's call on the political parties to accept the election results realistically and not protest against them deserves praise, if it is not a ploy to distract attention and cover up Golkar's true strategy of winning the contest.

And what about those excluded from the contests only because of trifling administrative shortcomings? In a democracy every party has the right to take part in the elections.

GANDHI SUKARDI

Jakarta