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Golkar was ready to become the opposition but following doubts expressed by other party officials the statement has been retracted.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.