Election '97: Lessons for the victor

By Irman G. Lanti

JAKARTA (JP): The last general election this century has come to an end. And Golkar, as in the previous five elections held in the New Order era, emerged the winner.

Procuring more than 74 percent of the votes, Golkar was unrivaled by PPP, who obtained less than 25 percent of the votes (albeit a dramatic increase from the 1992 election), and PDI, who was crushed in this election. Beyond the percentage of votes and number of seats in the House of Representatives won by the three contenders, the 1997 election has yielded several lessons for the groups as well as for the government.

Unlike previous elections, tension was high before and during the campaign, as well as after the voting period. The election process in Indonesia has always been less than peaceful. One example is Lapangan Banteng in 1982, in which a clash between supporters of one group and security forces resulted in the loss of life.

But the level of tension during the 1997 campaign was unprecedented. Prior to the campaign, a riot broke out in Pekalongan. In this traditional PPP area, the people reacted against what was considered an early start to campaigning by Golkar in the area.

During the campaign there were a number of riots throughout the country. In Jakarta, it was considered hazardous to travel in the city during campaigning. A riot in Banjarmasin claimed the lives of more than 100 people and resulted in the destruction of public facilities, amounting to billions of rupiah damage. Even after the seemingly peaceful election day, a riot broke out in Sampang Madura due to dissatisfaction with the voting process. Election-related riots also occurred in Serang.

The PPP and PDI parties have expressed their disappointment toward the alleged rigging of the election process. PPP has threatened not to sign the report of election results in a number of areas. PDI has hinted that it would nullify the election results altogether by not fulfilling the small number of seats it has acquired.

All of these problems are lessons for Golkar, which has run the government throughout the New Order administration. It seems that Golkar has gained an easy victory. But in reality, the victory is a result of the unprecedented level of social costs that the government has to pay. While Golkar has set the record percentage for all New Order elections, the price incurred is also the highest. If Golkar wishes to maintain its enormous popularity in the future, there are a number of caveats it must observe.

The social cost of winning the election is increasing. The national educational development has resulted in better analytical skills and capabilities of Indonesians. The society is becoming more critical toward deception and more resistant of coercion. Ways and means that have proven successful in the past may prove dangerous in the future. Riots surrounding the 1997 election were due to dissatisfaction with the alleged unfair behavior of the dominant party and the government concerning the whole election process.

Secondly, dissatisfaction will increase if Golkar, as the dominant group, fails to fulfill its campaign promise to eradicate corruption and collusion, to alleviate poverty, and to reduce socioeconomic gaps. Golkar will become less popular if the problems in the political-economic system of Indonesia persist.

Thirdly, Golkar's close association with the government has created problems as well as advantages. The advantages are clearly manifested in large votes for Golkar. The problems range from allegations of vote-rigging by local government officials in favor of Golkar and numerous attacks on government officials due to this allegation. Another problem is the PPP's and PDI's refusal to sign election results. If these problems remain unaddressed larger skirmishes can be expected in the future.

Fourthly, interference in the affairs of political parties has proven counterproductive. The meager vote acquired by PDI resulted in a record low number of seats won by a party in the parliament throughout the New Order. This may create a procedural -- if not a legal -- problem in the parliament. PDI might not be able to fulfill all parliamentary functions, which comprise eleven commissions, one inter-parliamentary body, and one chairperson of the House. The legislature may face a crisis if the present rule, which requires the consensus of all parliamentary factions to make certain decisions, is maintained because PDI is not represented.

International pressure has put Indonesia on the defensive, especially regarding the recent election. The international community regards the election in Indonesia as a mere justification that the present regime be considered democratic. The ousting of Megawati attracted the attention of several international groups, who said the election did not represent a real democratic process. Reports of manipulations and unfair treatment further justified this opinion. Tougher international pressure on Indonesia is expected if the problems surrounding the election continue to be neglected by the government, the most powerful political force in Indonesia.

The writer is a political analyst residing in Jakarta.