Democratization in Indonesia: Triumph or crisis?

Chusnul Mar'iyah

In the midst of violence, the processes of political change continued in 2002, one of which was the amendments to the 1945 Constitution.

The most important changes brought about by of the second and fourth amendments to the Constitution are as follows: First, a direct presidential election -- carried out in a two-round process -- for the next election.

It is the most important change in the post-Soeharto era and marks a highly hopeful future of more democratic processes in Indonesian politics. Second, the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) was changed into a bicameral institution.

With such changes, would democratization in the face of the 2004 election bring stable democracy? We need to look at both the above amendments and also preparations for the 2004 election, to conclude whether democratization in Indonesia is heading for triumph or further crisis.

Basically, the pressure by civil society since November 1999 -- in the form of the non-governmental organization (NGO) coalition for a new constitution -- has been adopted in the second, third and fourth amendment. Since November 1999, the coalition had striven for a direct presidential election, but the MPR rejected it at its annual meeting in 2000.

The coalition, according to the NGO Center for Electoral Reform (Cetro), organized more than 15,000 petitions from 26 provinces and 76 cities in Indonesia in support of a direct presidential election. The MPR secretariat had to disconnect its facsimile machine due to the sheer number of letters received. It seems that the political process still lacks public consultation, let alone consent.

In the MPR annual meeting this year, the first and second rounds agreed to adopt a direct presidential election. Why did the MPR only agree to a direct election during this year's annual meeting, when the demand has been voiced since the annual meeting in 2000?

And what did MPR members say about the Indonesian Military/Police (TNI/Polri) when the NGO coalition met with legislators on this issue? In an informal meeting with legislators, Slamet Efendi Yusuf from the Golkar party said that he had to go and see a doctor in the middle of the night due to hypertension and was not allowed to attend the meeting any more.

Meanwhile, a spokesperson from the Indonesian Democratic of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) stated that TNI/Polri were like the glue of this nation and so it was necessary to retain their involvement in the MPR.

There are many more interesting aspects in relation to the views and behavior of the political elite. They were witnessed during the 2000 MPR Annual Meeting where NGO representatives became members of what was dubbed the Fraksi Balkon (the "faction" attending the session from the balcony). In 2002, the MPR at least approved Article 2, Paragraph 1 to free MPR seats from unelected TNI/Polri representatives. The substance of the amendments, meanwhile, still reeked of vested political interests.

To say that the 1999 General Election was democratic is relatively correct. However, after being a member of the General Elections Commission (KPU), I could argue that the process was not totally democratic. There are so many cases that have been taken to the State Administrative Court (PTUN).

The cases included the illegal election of House members. At least 18 legislators, including a party chairman, allegedly violated the procedures in the process for their nomination to the House of Representatives.

In the 1999 General Election, many KPU members did not sign up to the result of the election. The 1999 election is thus flawed, though former president B.J. Habibie signed it.

The 1999 General Election was not only a political process but also a change from an authoritarian regime. Unfortunately, despite Soeharto's departure the political system in the general election remains. A democratic nation needs an independent civil society, something that cannot be brought about under the current system.

Another vital development in 2002 was the further deliberations and passing of the political party law while the draft electoral law was still being discussed.

The direct presidential election seems to be in place, yet the necessary ruling on the composition and position of MPR members to be involved in the process has not been passed into law. Another issue is the Military, in which there will be no more legislators appointed from TNI/Polri. And the issue of corruption was eventually progressed, with the establishment of an anticorruption commission, despite its shortcomings.

In the third amendment to the constitution, chapter 22E, Article 22 states that "the body supervising the general election is the General Elections Commission, which is nationwide, permanent and independent".

Therefore, the most authoritative body for supervising elections is KPU. However, the law on elections has not yet been completed.

The DPR passed the law on political parties only this year. There are some important issues here that must draw the public's attention. First, the issue of finance. Political parties must report their financial affairs to KPU.

Second, how to build internal democracy in a political party, including increasing the involvement of women. The issue on gender equity and justice received much opposition among the DPR patriarchs. It seems that there is lack of understanding of inclusive democracy and deliberative democracy. The demand for a 30 percent quota for women was not accepted in the law of political parties. Deliberative democracy means that the voice of the majority of people who will most likely be affected by the government's decisions must be heard in any decision-making process. Women are the majority of citizens today, hence increasing women's role in the decision-making process is a must.

Further, the electoral law, which has not yet been passed. Political parties have drawn up a list of 963 problems regarding the bill.

The delayed law on the elections has automatically affected preparations by the KPU. For example, so far we don't have an electoral register that would be effective for five years. The KPU has already decided on a register of voters (voting roll) but implementing the decision depends on the electoral law still being deliberated in the DPR.

The big political parties tend to prefer the closed lists of candidates associated with the old proportional system, in which political parties, meaning their oligarchy, decide on who will be the candidates.

Therefore, the challenge is to democratize political parties. How far would the electoral law give leeway for democratic rule? Plans for a direct presidential election law will also be delayed until the electoral law is passed.

Our attempts at democratization have been also been hampered in the area of human rights. No human rights violation cases, such as in Aceh, Trisakti University or the Semanggi shootings has been satisfactorily resolved. Furthermore, corruption is still endemic, especially with indications of wider misuse of state money at almost every level of government and the legislative and judicial bodies. We also lack leadership at various levels of government.

Political tension has been worsened by a tendency toward religion-related radicalism, particularly within Islamic groups. There is no room for radicalism in Indonesian politics. The campaign of a permanent war against terrorism and a war in Iraq will also influence the political process in Indonesia through the 2004 elections. This is a consequence of the structure of Indonesian society. Demands for syariah (Islamic) law in several cities and regencies must be handled through democratic and peaceful approaches.

Hence, the democratic rules of the game may be at a crossroads. Faced with an ongoing transformation in which democratic ideals have yet to be realized, there are still many obstacles to be overcome. The real goals of democratization, including gender equality and justice, won through nonviolent means, must be achieved by ending our habitual exclusion of poverty and gender.

Political tension in 2003 will be higher. Verifying which political parties can participate in the general election will be among the major tasks next year. The sheer number of political parties, which now total 225, will be another obstacle. The total would not be so important if each party obeyed the legal and political rules of the game. Political parties are important in enhancing democracy when they have an internal democratic culture, are exempt from corruption, are gender-sensitive and oriented toward people's welfare.

The pessimists on democratization will say that change has not occurred since the downfall of Soeharto. Nevertheless, optimism must be the modality for change.

The means and processes aimed at achieving democracy -- constitutional reform, changing the regime, electoral reform, accountable political parties, civil society awareness, gender equality and justice -- will bring civil and political liberties and prosperity under the banner "participatory democracy", arrived at without violence.