House power play keeps checks and balances at bay

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".