Golkar as an opposition party?

Golkar as an opposition party?

Golkar chairman Akbar Tandjung stated earlier Golkar was ready
to become the opposition but following doubts expressed by other
party officials the statement has been retracted. Political
analyst J. Soedjati Djiwandono looks further into the issue.

JAKARTA (JP): Golkar is not the only party to be disappointed
with the performance of the present government. The whole society
is. It is not fair, however, to blame everything on the
government, let alone on the President.

The fact is that there is a wide gap between the expectations
of the people and what the government can do under the
circumstances. There is also a wide gap between the enormity of
the problems faced and the limitation of the capability of the
government in terms of its competence and experience,
individually as well as collectively.

No matter how strong the government may be, it would need all
the resources of the nation and the full support of the whole
nation, including the political parties, to overcome the crisis
beleaguering the nation.

We all must be able to focus all our attention and effort on
that enormous challenge. Interparty wrangling over trivial, less
urgent and less important matters, and especially for personal
and sectarian interests, must be set aside.

For a start, however, the current government, while the most
democratically elected and thus the most legitimate in the
country since independence, is not a strong one in the normal
sense of the word.

It resulted from political compromises with all its
implications: a lack of coordination; rather than consult the
President, some ministers seem inclined to consult their own
party leaders and report to them rather than to the President. It
is lacking in professional competence and coordination.

Then look at the President himself. He is without doubt a man
of vision and solid moral principle. But we have to bear in mind
his physical frailties with all the possible consequences. And as
regards his political experience, we must bear in mind that for
over three decades the nation was deprived of the opportunity to
prepare a national leader. Then let's face it, when president
Soeharto unexpectedly resigned, in effect forced out of office by
student demonstrations, we had no alternative leader ready to
take over.

And the enormity of the problems? People are crying for the
supremacy of law. But supremacy of law, the rule of law, or the
principle that the state is based on law, all these assume just
law. Yet, how much has the present administration under
Abdurrahman Wahid inherited unjust, arbitrary laws from the New
Order? And many politicians do not even realize or understand
this.

Many of them still defend the 1966 decree of the Provisional
People's Consultative Assembly banning communism. And
Abdurrahman, or Gus Dur, has come under attack and criticism from
ignorant, and I would say, uneducated, politicians and
intellectuals in spite of their conspicuous university degrees,
for suggesting the lifting of this particular law.

And none even makes mention of the marriage law and the law on
national education. All of these laws, not to mention many
others, are against human rights. Then the government is faced
with incessant demands for drastic and speedy legal action
against corrupters.

But Gus Dur is still dependent on the old and ossified
bureaucracy, which has no work ethics to speak of and so is
accustomed to corrupt practices. People, particularly the young,
are losing patience with the slow process of bringing Soeharto to
trial.

They forget that his cronies may still be in powerful
positions and thus have political clout, money and a networking
of political and military connections. The Philippines, probably
with a more sophisticated legal system, has not succeeded in
recovering the wealth of the late Ferdinand Marcos after more
than a decade of legal hunting.

And economic recovery? Gus Dur also inherited huge foreign
debts from his predecessors, a condition of near economic
bankruptcy not of his own making. He is also confronted with
social injustice and social upheaval not of his own doing.

I have referred to such facts because Golkar's consideration
to turn into an opposition party seems to result from its feeling
of dissatisfaction and frustration.

It must realize that having certain of its own members in the
Cabinet implies that, like it or not, it shares the
responsibility of the lack of success in overcoming the country's
gigantic problems.

Moreover, the government has been in power for less than one
year.

More importantly, the desire to be an opposition party does
not seem to be based on proper and full understanding of the
meaning and role of opposition, which is part of the language of
parliamentary democracy.

For one thing, the right to criticize is not the monopoly of
an opposition party, for everyone in the power structure, be it
in government or in opposition, has the right to criticize the
government. For another, to criticize the government is the only
function of opposition.

Indeed, on the opposition rests the main responsibility for
what was once the critical function of parliament as a whole, but
at the same time it directs its criticism with a view to
convincing the public of its own fitness and readiness for
office.

So, the real target is the electorate that is expected to
change their minds on hearing its criticisms. It serves as a
"shadow" or an "alternative" Cabinet, with "shadow" portfolios
comparable to those in the government in power.

Without elaborating further on this issue, suffice it to say
that opposition is an institution befitting a parliamentary, not
a presidential system.

Moreover, it is possible under a parliamentary system that --
because the loyalty of members of parliament is above all to his
or her own conscience, than to his or her constituency, and only
then to his or her party -- a government in power may lose a
majority and fall not only because of the force of the opposition
but also because of its own party members that "cross the floor"
on certain issues, joining the opposition.

However, the government can challenge the opposition by
dissolving parliament and call for a fresh election in search of
a new mandate from the people.

In Indonesia, that would be unthinkable. Representatives of
the people are above all those of their respective political
parties. The President cannot be toppled. Nor can the President
dissolve the legislature.

So how can Golkar's idea of "checks and balances" be put into
practice? There being no mechanism of judicial power (normally
vested in the Supreme Court) in the system based on the 1945
Constitution, debate between the House of Representatives and the
President, particularly on legal and constitutional issues as was
the case on July 20, will only result in a stalemate, with the
President getting the upper hand, for it is in his hands that
legislative powers are vested.

Akbar Tandjung's reference to "checks and balances" was
correct in form (that is, in the plural rather than singular form
as most Indonesian politicians and analysts are prone to say
incorrectly). It refers to a multiple and complex mutual control
and balance between more than just two institutions.

Thus, Golkar's idea of becoming an opposition party is
therefore misleading. It is a self-delusion. No party wishes to
be in opposition except because it has no choice due to its
failure to win an election. It seems to be a continuation of its
crisis of identity from the outset, since the fall of the New
Order. Even the name of the party itself -- Golkar (Golongan
Karya, functional group) -- seems meaningless.

The best it can do, though not until it faces the next
election, is to change its name and metamorphose into a
completely new party.