Focusing on the gimmicks used in the power struggle

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): Is it true that the recent Golkar congress was defiled by an acrid fight between the supporters of Akbar Tandjung and Edi Sudradjat? I personally think there is an element of truth in this allegation. It is obvious that a bitter fight to win control of the party took place between the two camps.

What interests me is the manner in which this struggle was carried out. It appears that the Akbar Tandjung camp won by combining two kinds of power -- the power to persuade and the power to threaten. John Kenneth Galbraith has labeled these two means of imposing one's will upon others as "compensatory power" and "condign power" respectively.

Compensatory power is the power to win submission by the offer of affirmative rewards -- If you give your vote to me, you will be rewarded. Thus, only those with sufficient means to distribute rewards can use this kind of power.

Condign power, on the other hand, is the power to win submission by inflicting unpleasant consequences upon those who do not yield. "Give your vote to us, or else!" The consequences of condign power can be very unpleasant. In one district of Central Java, contractors who refused to support the ruling Golkar during the 1997 general election were subsequently denied any government contracts by the regent. This type of power can only be acquired by groups which effectively control established organizations or institutions.

It is interesting to compare Golkar's internal wrangle with the power politics which lead to a deep division emerging in the PDI in 1996. It appears that during the Golkar congress the offer of affirmative rewards was the main tool deployed by the Akbar Tandjung camp. In stark contrast, it was the ability to inflict unpleasant consequences on the opposition that was the primary instrument used by the sponsors of the Soerjadi faction during the PDI affair.

The heavy reliance of the Akbar Tandjung camp on compensatory power was exposed by the subsequent massive expansion of Golkar's central council, which now consists of 138 people. I do not think the council was expanded deliberately just to make it more cumbersome. I believe the expansion arose from the necessity of rewarding all those who offered their support.

The contention that the sponsors of the Soerjadi faction relied primarily on condign power is attested to by the subsequent annihilation of the Megawati faction from the country's formal political landscape.

It should be noted that in the two examples, both condign and compensatory powers were deployed and the use of one does not preclude the use of the other. According to Galbraith, every major exercise of power -- political, economic, religious, or of any other nature -- is always carried out through the use of a combination of three kinds of power: condign, compensatory, and conditioned.

Galbraith defines this last category of power as "the power which is exercised by changing belief." So while condign power is generated primarily through organizational strength and compensatory power relies heavily on material rewards, conditioned power is generated primarily by personality. It is only leaders with strong and compelling personal qualities who can generate conditioned power.

The late president Sukarno is an example of a leader who at the beginning of his political career succeeded in accumulating power primarily through changing the political beliefs of others -- through explicit conditioning. Later after he became president of the country, and especially after he abandoned "liberal democracy" and embraced "guided democracy", he could no longer rely upon conditioned power alone. He resorted extensively to compensatory power, and occasionally to condign power. Here, as always, the need to deploy three kinds of power arose.

Another important issue with regards to power is related to its ultimate use. According to Galbraith there are basically three reasons for exercising power, namely to advance individual and group interests, including or especially financial interests; to extend to others one's personal, social, or religious values; or to enjoy the experience of exercising power itself.

One interesting fact about the use of power is that no one is ever willing to openly state why they are seeking to impose their will upon others. Justifications for the use of power are almost always phrased in idealistic or euphemistic language.

Among the three reasons for the exercise of power mentioned above, the last is considered the least desirable. Nobody will ever admit publicly that they are seeking power for its sheer enjoyment. No one will admit publicly that absolute power is absolutely delightful. Nevertheless elaborate cultural rituals have developed which allow those who hold power to revel in its glory -- applause at the end of a speech, military salutes, according VIP status, to name but a few. William Hazlitt said in this regard: "The love of power is the love of ourselves."

After witnessing seizure and frequent abuse of power, many ordinary people have come to view discussion of power as a repugnant topic best left to repulsive politicians. I do not think this is a wise attitude. If we do not wish to once again become the victims of abuses of power we must ourselves learn how to wield it to good advantage. The exercise of power is inevitable in modern society. Nothing can be accomplished without power, but despite this reality, never again must anyone be allowed to accumulate unlimited power.

Power is a subject that we must approach with a skeptical but open mind. It should not exclusively be thought of as dirty and evil. As stated by Galbraith, "Power can be socially malign, but it is also socially essential." This should serve to remind the powerful to use their strength as humanely as possible and to clip the wings of evil that are attached to it.