Golkar's congress and RI's political development

Jusuf Wanandi, Jakarta

Golkar was established as a coordinating secretariat in 1963 and as a united front against the PKI (Indonesian Communist Party). It was initiated by the Indonesian Army. It consisted of many vocational and other groupings: labor, youth, students, women, academics, ulema, professional organizations (doctors, engineers, lawyers, economists, social scientists, etc.) and, of course, representatives of the Army. Other small social organizations created earlier by the Army, such as SOKSI, KOSGORO, and the MKGR, were included.

Golkar became a potent political force only after the general elections of 1971, when it won 62 percent of the vote and seats in parliament. That opened the chance of, and gave rise to the necessity for, consolidation, which took place during Golkar's first congress in Surabaya in 1973, when it was transformed into a political party through the amalgamation of the above groups.

After its consolidation, Golkar was often compared to the PRI (Institutional Revolution Party) in Mexico, which also consists of various interest groups, alternating the presidency between them. The PRI has had a majority in the national legislature for a very long time indeed.

Soeharto was the one that consolidated Golkar, but he never allowed it to become a full-fledged political party with grassroots support, and a cadre system -- a party capable of defining the role of the government. Instead, Golkar became his political vehicle as head of the government to mobilize public support for his policies and to ensure his re-election at the polls. The parliament, where Golkar was handed a majority in six consecutive general elections, was just a rubber stamp for president Soeharto.

This began to change when Akbar Tandjung took over following Soeharto's fall, when Golkar was completely demoralized and discredited as a result of the role it played in Soeharto's authoritarian system. He turned Golkar into a party that grows from the grassroots. In the democratic elections of 2004, Golkar emerged as the biggest party in its own right.

During the upcoming congress, slated to start on Dec. 18, Golkar faces new challenges. Two questions immediately arise: Who will lead Golkar, and will it act as a "loyal" opposition in the House of Representatives? However, the more important question is whether Golkar can continue to consolidate as a democratic party.

There are three main candidates for the chairmanship: Akbar Tandjung, Gen. (ret) Wiranto, and Surya Paloh, the media mogul. Clearly, Akbar Tandjung is the best equipped to do the job. He has had the experience of expanding Golkar during a very difficult period, which involved converting Golkar from an authoritarian-based party into a democratic one. This is a critical factor for Golkar's future as the political environment demands that Golkar adopts democracy as its sine qua non. With due respect, it is doubtful that the other two candidates can do that.

Wiranto was a military man his whole life before turning to politics. This is hardly a conducive environment for producing a democrat. Eisenhower or Powell came from different cultural backgrounds, and were used to democratic (civilian) control over the armed forces. In comparison, during Soeharto's 32 years the military was his praetorian guard. Moreover, Wiranto is still under international indictment for the abuses in East Timor in 1999. His popularity was tested during the recent presidential election, and has been found wanting.

Surya Paloh, a businessman, does not come from very democratic surroundings either as a business is rarely democratic. If a business were to be democratic, it is unlikely that it would make money. The examples of Berlusconi and Thaksin immediately come to mind.

Akbar also came to the fore under Soeharto, but he has been able to overcome the stigma by demonstrating that as the party chairman he has been able to change Golkar into a more democratic institution over the last five years. It is ironic that a group of Golkar "seniors", who served diligently under Soeharto and Habibie, are now publicly demanding that Akbar step aside. Instead, they have thrown their support behind Wiranto. This will only serve to bring about a resurrection of the Golkar party of old, which enjoyed its heyday at a time when democracy was stiffled, abuses were the norm, and authoritarianism was the order of the day. Should this pattern be repeated, Golkar will not have a very bright future.

Most importantly, both Wiranto and Surya Paloh have never been sufficiently involved in a hands-on manner in the day-to-day running of Golkar to understand and appreciate the values and the networking that are critical to success as the party's leader.

In Mexico, the PRI has also took a beating when the political system was finally opened up following intense pressure from the people. But the PRI under President Ernesto Zedillo was able to adjust and managed to maintain its domination of the country's national and state legislatures. Now, after a period of consolidation and adjustment, as well as of opening up, the PRI again has a chance of taking the presidency during the 2005 election.

Golkar's future development as the country's biggest party is crucial for Indonesia's democracy as healthy political parties are a prerequisite to achieving real democracy. And the role of Golkar as the "loyal" opposition in parliament is critical for the emergence of a healthy and mature democracy. Successful elections, that is to say, fair, peaceful and democratic elections, as were experienced recently, are only the beginning. Without a further deepening of the process, including establishing a balance between the executive and legislative branches, democracy can never really put down deep roots.

For this to happen, the participation of the Golkar leadership will be vital.

The writer is a cofounder and member of the board of trustees of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).