How long will political uncertainty last?

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.