Dual leadership of parties and public office not in conflict

Leadership within political parties is still lacking. Last week President Megawati Soekarnoputri said she would not resign as chair of her party amid debate over whether public officials should resign as leaders of political parties. The Jakarta Post's reporter Asip A. Hasani talked to political scientist Ichlasul Amal of Yogyakarta's Gadjah Mada University and sociologist Daniel Sparingga of Surabaya's Airlangga University. The following are excerpts of the interview with professor Ichlasul:

Question : There have been demands that President Megawati Soekarnoputri resign as chairwoman of her Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle and that other high ranking officials should also give up their party posts. Your comment?

Answer: What's important is their conscience, because there is no law regulating this. Why should they give up their political party posts as civil servants do? It is not as simple as it sounds.

Actually, public positions such as those of the president, the vice president and ministers are political positions, just like positions in political parties. They are not bureaucratic positions. So, I don't think worries about such dual positions are that significant.

Q: But public officials are expected to devote their time to their state duties...

A: Actually, state duties depend more on the persons themselves. If one becomes a public official, one should automatically detach oneself from the interests of one's political party. It is useless for an official to give up his post in his party if he continues to chair his party's meetings in secret.

A political party could introduce its own regulation about this issue given the absence of such a law.

Q: But an official could abuse his position for his party's interests...

A: I don't think this is a correct assumption. In the United States, for example, donations to political parties come from private companies. The government does not give direct donations to these parties. There are exceptions, of course. For example, a government project for a dam construction is awarded to a particular company. In turn, that company will then reward the official involved by donating to his political party. In the case of projects funded by foreign parties, however, the bidding is tight so that the likelihood of this is reduced to a minimum.

So, the fear about dual positions is not related to whether a public official is a functionary of a political party or not because in many countries it is common that someone from a political party assumes a government position.

Q: Isn't this practice common only in countries with a parliamentary system?

A: You're right. The United States adopts a presidential system and (former president) Clinton was not party chairman ... So when he became president, he would still have, at least, an emotional bond with the party. Now take President George W. Bush. Businessmen who have donated to his party are now U.S. envoys.

In Indonesia this issue is related to Megawati and Hamzah Haz. As Megawati is both the President and chairwoman of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), she hopes to control her legislators so none will defect despite the fact that the mechanism for replacing deviant members has now been abolished. So if Megawati, Hamzah or Cabinet ministers give up their posts in the political parties, there could be political instability once their parties start to resist their leadership.

One weakness of the multi-party system adopted in the 1950s is that minor parties could, in the parliamentary system, cause instability if their numbers were big enough. Although triggered by a different factor, Gus Dur's (former president Abdurrahman Wahid) impeachment by the People's Consultative Assembly was reminiscent of the (political strife in the ) 1950s.

Q: In the presidential system, the President should not be afraid of being ousted by the legislature. So why should Megawati need to make sure she can control her people in the political party and in the legislature?

A: Well, in a presidential system, the House cannot oust a President and whatever the Cabinet does is not dependent on what happens in the House. Unfortunately, our constitutional system is not clear. We adopt the presidential system on one hand but on the other we agree that the Assembly convenes once a year to evaluate the government's performance. In this respect, we're adopting the parliamentary system. In the same way, regents must make an accountability report to the regional legislative assemblies.

Q: Political parties like PDI Perjuangan have objected to their party leaders having to give up their party positions because they are still needed. For instance Megawati's charisma is still needed and still unrivaled in PDI Perjuangan. Your comment?

A: True, nearly all political parties rely on the charismatic influence of political figures. Yet these charismatic leaders tend to violate the law.

Q: Is the Golkar Party a better organization as it seems less dependent on the charisma of party figures?

A: Well, Golkar has its own history. Golkar voters are more established and it used to be fully supported by the New Order' administration and bureaucracy. Golkar once had former President Soeharto as its most prominent figure but this was not attributable to Soeharto's charisma, but to his decision power. In the next election, I believe Golkar will not be able to collect as many votes as it had previously because its bond with the bureaucracy is now not very clear.

Q: If officials remain party leaders and at the same time they tend to abuse the law how can we have clean government?

A: The most important thing is the budgetary procedure must be really transparent. There is a lack of transparency in the non- budgetary revenues. The ministries keep these non-budgetary funds. Then there is also non-budgetary spending related to the travel expenses of officials abroad. Garuda often covers these expenses, such as Gus Dur's visit to the United States. The logic is that when one company gives some pocket money, or whatever, to a government official, of course, it hopes to get something in return from this official. If all spending and receipts are transparent and must go through a budget procedure, chances for collusion will be minimized.