Dual leadership of parties and public office not in conflict

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.