Golkar and the law
Golkar and the law
What many observers had expected and activists had feared
became reality on Tuesday. The Supreme Court, in what it termed a
conclusive session on the subject -- delayed one day because of
the assassination of one of its justices -- rejected demands for
the freezing of the Golkar Party and its disqualification from
the 2004 general election.
As anticipated, the court's decision was greeted with cheers
by pro-Golkar groups but angered prodemocracy activists who were
waiting for the ruling in front of the Supreme Court in Central
Jakarta. Scuffles occurred between the two groups, forcing
security forces to restore order by firing warning shots and
lobbing a few tear gas canisters into the crowd.
As was also widely expected, the panel of justices ruled that
the charge -- brought by a number of plaintiffs, including Sri
Bintang Pamungkas, a long-time opponent of former president
Soeharto's New Order regime -- that Golkar had received donations
far in excess of the amounts allowed under the law had not been
proven.
In brief, the court ruled that the evidence brought against
the party constituted little more than conclusions based on
hearsay. As a token of displeasure over the decision -- and also
as a sign of the public's lack of regard for the judiciary in
postcrisis Indonesia -- a protester threw a chicken into the
courtroom as soon as the ruling was announced.
In contrast to the tumult in and in front of the Supreme
Court, the Golkar headquarters in Central Jakarta remained
strangely undisturbed throughout the proceedings. In fact it
looked almost abandoned, except for a few uniformed guards
standing by. Even so, it appears safe to assume that this calm
can be ascribed more to the public's current political fatigue
rather than to popular support for the party.
Most Indonesians remember Golkar's predominant role in
upholding president Soeharto's dictatorial regime from 1967 until
his downfall in 1997, and there are still many unhealed wounds
from this period. The press is still traumatized by decades of
relentless censorship that was faithfully executed by top leaders
of Golkar. The country's lack of quality political leaders and
statesmen is seen by analysts as the result of those decades of
suppression. And Indonesia's current economic woes are ascribed
by many as leftovers of Soeharto's corrupt regime which Golkar
helped to keep in power.
Since Soeharto's downfall in May 1997 and the beginning of a
new era of democratic reform, Golkar has taken measures to rid
itself of that stigma, including renaming itself Golkar Baru, or
New Golkar, to indicate its supposed break with the past. It
appears, though, that it takes more than a little change in name
to convince the public that Golkar has indeed transformed itself
from a dictator's tool into a genuine political party fit to help
the nation build a new, democratic society on the ruins left by
the old regime.
As things stand at this point, though, Indonesians have little
choice but to recognize Golkar's existence, in line with the
decision by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, for whatever it is
worth. There have been allegations of corruption in the country's
judiciary, including in the Supreme Court. To disregard the
court's decisions, however, would be to invite chaos. The current
reform movement has brought to light the need to clean up so many
institutions that the job sometimes seems impossible even to
begin.
However, pessimism is of no help. Somehow the job must be
done. As for Golkar, all this turmoil could probably have been
prevented had it listened to the good advice at the start of the
reform movement that it disband itself and reorganize by bringing
in new faces, not just a new name, to make its claim of having
emerged as a democratic organization more credible to
Indonesians.