Democracy is for democrats

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