House power play keeps checks and balances at bay
Tony Hotland The Jakarta Post/Jakarta
Vehemently, they took turns to press the speaker's button to voice their protests, while others impatiently moved forward from their seats to the House leadership bench. A brawl was imminent, and journalists readied themselves.
The same fracas recurred a week later, with the same faces, same floor and the same debate, which stretched to midnight. Legislators shouted persistently, insisting on a vote to throw out the government's policy to lift subsidies and raise fuel prices. They lost, but many believe they won the public over.
Members of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI- P), the immediate darlings after the 1998 fall of Soeharto's three-decade-long authoritarian rule, are now swamped with agendas -- they are expected to play their role as staunch critics of the government after their landslide loss in last year's presidential election to Democratic Party leader Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
Being in opposition is familiar territory for the PDI-P. Along with the United Development Party (PPP), the formerly named Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI), were two of the few opposition parties to Soeharto's Golkar Party.
But this was hardly an opposition in the any democratic sense of the word. Parties could be shut down if they pushed New Order governments too hard, and even if they did speak out, a cowed media were often too afraid to report them.
In a now-freer political climate, opposition politicians can openly challenge policies and attack personalities without fear of imprisonment or banning -- something, judging from the PDI-P members' sometimes uneven performance, members are still getting their heads around.
After the presidential election, the PDI-P initially formed an opposition bloc with former arch foes and fellow presidential also-rans Golkar, and their traditional allies, the National Awakening Party (PKB). This was the kind of power-hungry parliamentary flip-flop that would be viewed as bizarre in the West -- and wasn't thought of too highly here either.
This unnatural bunch of bedfellows quickly broke up after Vice President Jusuf Kalla was voted into Golkar's top post. Former PKB members also joined Susilo's Cabinet but it was not enough to bring the whole party into the fold. This time, however, with ministers joining from both the party's factions, the PKB's formal entry into government could come soon.
Which would leave the PDI-P as the main opposition in the House.
"In short, our job is to establish a check-and-balance system of the current administration. We (may be) alone, but perhaps it's better off that way, as long as we're close to the people," PDI-P deputy secretary general Sutradara Gintings said.
The party, which won the most votes in the 1999 election, dropped to second behind Golkar in last year's legislative poll to secure 109 out of 550 seats in the House.
In a modern democracy, Sutradara said, being in opposition should be considered as equally worthy as being in government -- as a vital counterbalance to power.
However, for many other parties, he said, it seemed that old ways die hard. After Susilo was elected, former opposition parties (like Golkar) were quick to ignore whatever vague political manifesto they had to rejoin the government, getting their hands back on power -- and the state's coffers.
"And we completely grasp why other parties were easily enticed to joining the Cabinet -- because of the obvious perks. That's how this country was run for more than 30 years. But remember that there are always times for a political switch," Sutradara said.
He should know, he has stood for and won legislative seats under three main parties -- Golkar, the Nationhood Unity Party and PDI-P.
But this unwillingness to betray its political position, he said, was why the PDI-P turned down the President's offer for ministerial posts prior to last month's Cabinet reshuffle.
"I should mention that some of us did give thought to this. Drooling over the perks, some wanted to reconsider our political stance, but we're not new kids on the block. Thus, I find it silly when you threaten to pull out your political support unless you're given more Cabinet seats," he said.
This December also marks the first year of the current House of Representatives.
Looking at PDI-P's time in opposition, Sutradara said his party had gone all-out to become a credible sparring partner to the government and that the Susilo administration should start taking its justifiable criticisms seriously.
"But it is not for us to assess our success, but the public in the next election," he said.
In opposition, the PDI-P was left out of almost all of the political lobbying in government, especially in the many closed- door meetings between party factions at the State Palace prior to House plenary sessions, which decided positions of the House.
"It's these kind of (government) efforts to absorb all the political powers, especially in the House, which are unhealthy for the development of politics. That's what we refer to as a procedural -- not a substantial -- democracy," Sutradara said.
From a battle of positions to a brawl, to lax monitoring, to a disappointing record in passing legislation, the House has exhibited a shaky performance this year -- a description that House Speaker Agung Laksono, of the Golkar Party, has publicly agreed with.
And a desire for party unity has ensured that individual legislators' dissenting opinions become taboo after their faction leaders engage in lobbying with the government.
To others, much of this opposition seems to be cynical grandstanding. Countless legislators from opposition and governing parties rushed to stand out and voice their disagreement with the government's second fuel price hike in early October. But when the plenary session came, less than five of these legislators bothered to dissent during the vote.
Afterwards the others claimed, unconvincingly, they had at least tried to fight the legislation early on.
Of course, without the support of a majority in the House, there is no way that Susilo's administration could have had a hope to push through any of the reforms we have seen in the past year.
But having a more even number of legislators in opposing and reigning camps could mean more scrutiny and could end up benefiting the people, observers have said.
Political analyst Ikrar Nusa Bhakti said such a situation would be a boost to a democracy's check and balance system, especially if opposing groups were able to produce innovations and workable alternate policies.
"The PDI-P, for instance, has been striving to play the part of a good opposition. But they lack innovation and have poor public relations, which is unfortunate when you are practically the only challenger in the field," Ikrar said.
Syamsuddin Haris, of the National Institute of Sciences, says this lack of policy ideas was the most likely reason why many parties preferred to join the administration.
"And in PDI-P's case, their lack of originality and unclear form of opposition have also worked to put off other parties from supporting them," he said.
Sutradara has a response, accustomed as he is to critics that say his party is as clueless as the government. Whether it is convincing, or not, is -- in Sutradara's words -- for the public to decide.
"We share the general description of our alternate policies with the government, but of course we spare them the details. These are for us to reveal and once our turn to rule the administration comes," he said.
He added that while his party was playing hard in opposition, it was also attempting to play fair, by giving credit to the government's approach on the special autonomy status for Papua and the health minister's policy to provide insurance for the poor.
"When (policy) benefits the public, particularly the poor, the government can count us in. Other than that, we're more than prepared to challenge," Sutradara said.
"The poor" and "the public" are perhaps the most tired phrases used by campaigning politicians, who are actually focused on other words -- "president", "minister", "legislator", "power" or "money".
Perhaps this is why these seemingly clear and noble sentiments become blurry when these politicians assume power.
Promises stay promises.
Members of the House Commission III on human rights promised victims of the 1998 Trisakti and Semanggi shooting incidents a review of why the investigations into these cases had stalled. But there was no follow-up until the families of victims came back knocking on their door -- six months later.
It seems that whatever side of the fence one is on politically, the parties have a long way to go.
Observers say, clear political platforms, and less venal leadership would be a start. Especially for those who proudly bear the title "representative of the public".