Golkar and members stand on conflicting sides
Golkar and members stand on conflicting sides
The ruling political grouping, Golkar, delayed its decision
for a week on Tuesday to expel a legislator from the House of
Representatives. Noted political scientist Arbi Sanit talks to
The Jakarta Post about this.
Question: How do you see the uproar over the decision of
Golkar to withdraw its outspoken member, Bambang Warih Koesoemo,
from the House of Representatives?
Answer: In general, there's a fundamental difference between
members of a political party posted in the legislative body and
those in the executive board. This difference concerns the
party's ideology and policies.
Let's take Golkar. The policies and ideology it adheres to may
be interpreted differently by individual members. The government
recognizes cooperation between the executive and the legislative
branches of power. In reality, the legislators stand in opposite
camps from the executives (of the same political grouping).
In matters concerning Golkar's policies, too, the central
executive board usually stands in support of the government
policies, while legislators from the group might resist them.
Therefore, the executive board and the members in the
legislative bodies often stand on conflicting sides ... this is
why a member can easily be labeled disloyal or as having
disciplinary problems if he shows resistance toward the political
group's official line.
Q: Bambang claimed he was never properly warned, if, indeed,
he was guilty of violating Golkar's official line. What do you
think?
A: The central executive board of a political organization
should first issue a warning for a member considered to be going
astray from the group's political line. Then, if he still
persists, he should be served a second warning. Only if he
ignores the third warning can he be withdrawn from his post.
There are still additional procedures. The decision to dismiss
a member should be made in a plenary meeting, and the so-called
violator should be given a chance to defend himself. If the
plenary meeting decides unanimously that it cannot pardon the
offender, then the member can be dismissed.
Why all the fuss? Because the ruling of a political
organization is a political decision.
I believe Bambang Warih Koesoemo has not been treated fairly
because Golkar's executive board did not serve him with any
warnings beforehand.
I can understand if right now Bambang feels he has been
treated unfairly and wants to sue Golkar leaders. And he has
grounds for that ... the procedures and requirements for
withdrawing a political party member haven't been fully observed.
Q: Golkar leaders say that they have solid reasons for
dismissing Bambang, including what they have called Bambang's
misconduct when dealing with cabinet ministers. Are these
justifiable?
A: No. One of the functions of Golkar, as a political
grouping, is to control the members of the executive branch of
government. All those accusations against Bambang are in
opposition to that function.
If Bambang believed that some ministers were not doing their
job well and he criticized them, then he was only doing what he's
supposed to be doing. He was in fact displaying responsibility
toward the people who voted for Golkar. If there are no members
who work like that, Golkar would be barren.
If Bambang was considered too outspoken, there should be
further explanation about this label. He was not seeking to
topple the government or to embarrass the ministers. I believe he
was speaking for the people that he represented.
Q: Moestahid Astari, the chairman of the Golkar faction at the
House of Representatives, said that prior to the dismissal, he
had already approached Bambang and "guided" him. Can this
approach be accepted as the necessary "warnings" the party should
have issued to Bambang?
A: Definitely not. This is a matter of organization, a
political organization, and a personal approach can't be put in
the same category as organizational procedures.
It was the chairmen and leaders of Golkar's executive board
who should have reprimanded him formally. This is the correct
management of an organization. They can't just say that because
they have approached Bambang personally, then he's already
warned.
As far as I know, Bambang has not committed any important
mistake. And the facts show that the political procedures have
not been observed.
Q: What do you think is behind this dismissal?
A: I believe we're seeing here a power play within Golkar. The
executive board members were only flexing their muscles, showing
that they are in charge over members who are posted at the House.
This condition represents a fundamental weakness in our system
of political representation. The House members have no real
power. Only people who sit in a party's faction leadership or
central executive board have power.
It also shows that the members are mostly accountable toward
the party, instead of toward the people who voted for the
political organization.
I believe this condition should be corrected. The essence of
power here is the people's sovereignty. So, those legislators'
responsibility is toward the people. This is a fundamental issue.
Neglecting this question is among the reasons why the House is
impotent when it comes to dealing with the executive power. The
House members are subjugated by their faction, so they cannot
fully fight for the interests of the people. They have no
effective venue to fight for people's interests.
These conditions need pervasive correction. The relations
between the government and the House, for instance, should be
improved so that there's no gap of power between the two. The
House statutes should make it clear that the sovereignty of the
legislative body is the sovereignty of the people. (swe)