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 Only if he ignores the third warning can he be withdrawn from his post.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)