How long will political uncertainty last?

By Yulius P. Hermawan

This is the first of two articles on political transition in Indonesia.

BANDUNG (JP): Every observer of Indonesian politics will agree that the transition to democracy is not a linear process which will generate political certainties in a short time, as many people had hoped. No one can predict what will happen in either the short term or the long term. Nor can anyone predict whether the transition will proceed in a smooth and rational manner.

The process really depends on the game of politics, in which "political gladiators" are actively taking part. The process may take a long time to complete because there are many issues and vested interests which will prove to be serious obstacles to the ultimate success of the transition.

Political uncertainty is somewhat common to new democracies (O'Donnel and Schmitter, 1986). There are at least two factors which cause political uncertainty and which are likely to affect the length of the uncertainty.

First, political gladiators must compete with each other -- to outperform other contestants, but not to eliminate their rivals. The competition is open to all contestants. Various political actors may enter the competition -- including pro- status quo forces and new political forces which seek gradual or radical approaches to building democracy. There are also political opportunists among the contestants who seek to take advantage of the changing situation to further their own interests.

Second, the political gladiators will be reluctant to reach a consensus about democratic values before entering the contest. They may respect the principles and rules of the political game, but they will be eager to secure access to power by taking a tough stand against other contestants. Even though there is strong pressure for new political forces to form an alliance or coalition to block pro-status quo forces, it is rare for new forces to take the initiative and establish a consensus for the alliance or coalition.

This is to say that democracy will emerge as a result of impasse and disagreement; not as a result of unity and consensus. Democracy emerges by interlinking different interests and contrary ideas to generate strategic interactions among political actors.

During the transition process, abnormality is a central characteristic of political life. People will raise many questions about the legitimacy of their leaders, the investigation into the wrongdoings of the past regime, the formation of a credible and legitimate administration, the capability and credibility of new leaders and the creation of new political laws.

The transition ends when a stable normality arises and becomes the main character of political life. In some respects, this will happen after all the political actors have established and secured a set of relatively explicit rules. These rules will be the main signpost for political actors to gain equal access to power, take part in the competition according to all legal manners, adopt certain procedures to facilitate the decision making process and establish criterion to outperform other political actors (O'Donnel and Schmitter, 1986). Then this set of rules will be accepted as a new regime.

The case of the ongoing transition to democracy in Indonesia shows these two challenging factors have led to abnormality as the central characteristic of political life. Postelection politics in the country reveal problems which are even more complicated than most people thought before the recent polls.

The first dimension of this complication is that the transition has provided an equal chance for various political actors. Hundreds of political parties were formed, representing various interests, issues and groups. Yet there were only a few parties which actually gained a significant number of supporters and which established a nation-wide base. The recent elections show that only five parties collected a substantial number of votes and seats in the House of Representatives.

The formation of new political forces is an exciting phenomenon in Indonesian politics. Yet, the more interesting phenomenon is the fact that none of these forces could eliminate the ruling Golkar Party, which, broadly speaking, should be held responsible for the misdeed of the authoritarian New Order regime.

The ruling Golkar has continuously been blasted for rampant corruption and mismanagement of the economy, leading to the current economic and social crises. Amid this widespread criticism, Golkar still exists and should be considered one of the prospective political gladiators in the postelection political world.

A consensus on unitary actions is somewhat difficult to build in Indonesian politics. It is unfortunate the persistence of Golkar did not lead parties which call themselves reformists to unite. There were so much necessity for reform parties to form a coalition. However, these parties seemed to be reluctant to take the initiative. They knew very well they should block Golkar's attempts to win the general election. A coalition was not only necessary, but imperative to make reform possible. However, these parties did not take the initiate and form a coalition.

In the postelection era, forming a coalition of reform parties is even more complicated. There is a question as to whether the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) is truly reformist since the party is against amending the constitution and has never made its stance clear on the dual function of the Indonesian Military.

There is also some doubt about the capability of chairwoman Megawati Soekarnoputri, who is the front-runner to become the next president.

The dichotomy of pro-status quo and reformist is further complicated by the popular new issue of Muslim and non-Muslim legislative candidates. This issue has caused some people to question whether PDI Perjuangan wishes to establish a secular state under the influence of Christians and non-Muslims.

Which parties will come together to form a coalition is now a challenging issue. Adding to the challenge is the fact that the ruling Golkar is more active than other parties in initiating a coalition. Golkar's attempts to form a coalition with other major parties, including the United Development Party (PPP), the National Mandate Party (PAN), the National Awakening Party (PKB) and even PDI Perjuangan have further complicated the coalition issue.

The writer is a lecturer in International Relations at Parahyangan Catholic University and a researcher at the Parahyangan Center for International Studies in Bandung. This article is based on research on Korean politics completed at the School of Politics at Monash University, Australia, in 1997.