How neutral is 'neutral'?

"Neutrality" in Indonesian politics has meant anything but neutral, just like our "democracy" is not really democratic. This has been the case throughout the 32 years of the New Order regime. The civil service and the Armed Forces (ABRI), while professing neutrality, supported former president Soeharto and his political machine Golkar to help sustain power. They not only mobilized their personnel and family during elections, but, as the administrators and supervisors of the elections, they helped rig the results to ensure a victory for Golkar. The civil service and the military were part and parcel of the New Order power structure. They were anything but neutral.

Few people dared to openly question the ABRI leadership when it again promised last week to keep neutrality in the June elections. There were a few muted comments, but most people are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and let time prove whether the military can live up to its words this time.

It's a totally different game when it comes to the neutrality of civil servants. With the election fast approaching, the fate of government workers has been the subject of a heated debate in and outside the House of Representatives, which is preparing the new political legislations, including electoral law.

Given its history of conspiracy with Golkar, it is not surprising many political parties are skeptical that the civil service can truly remain neutral. The United Development Party (PPP) is currently leading the campaign in the House to prevent civil servants from running in the election, or from becoming party executives, unless they take unpaid leave from government services. PPP may be in minority in the House, but it speaks on behalf of most of the 100 or so new political parties vying to contest the election.

Golkar is the lone faction in the House defending what it vehemently claims to be the political right of civil servants as citizens of the country to run in elections. Coming from an organization with a 32-year history of trampling the political rights of millions of people, Golkar's argument sounds comical and borders on an insult. This line of argument is nothing but a desperate attempt to defend some of its last vestiges of power.

Golkar's past privileges allowed it to be the only political force outside the military and the bureaucracy with extensive branches at village levels. Most of these branches are run by the village heads and their bureaucratic structures. These are Golkar's grassroots workers who have delivered the votes for Golkar in the past, and are expected to do so again in the future, if Golkar has its way in the House. Remove them from the political arena, and Golkar will lose some of its political clouts.

Golkar remains powerful, if not outside, at least inside the House, where it has the necessary numbers to outvote the other three factions combined. By all accounts, it looks ready to flex its muscle again and force the issue to a vote, in spite of public opinion to the contrary.

However, opposition concerns about the ability of civil servants to remain neutral are overshadowed by deep-seated suspicions about Golkar's intentions, and what it is capable of doing. If anything, this saga about the political future of civil servants has exposed that Golkar, despite changes in its leadership and claims of pursuing the reform path, is still run by people molded in old politics, where the ends justify the means to stay in power.

This is a terrifying prospect for the future of Indonesia's democracy, given that Golkar is still calling most of the shots in the legislative agenda and it still commands significant power and influence in the country, largely through its past patron- client relationship and massive financial backing.

But Golkar would commit a grave mistake if it thinks that it can get away by flexing its muscle again as in the past. Golkar is a part of that New Order structure that the nation has been seeking to abolish. Golkar, therefore, has no more legitimate right than does President B.J. Habibie to remain in power, but both have managed do so, apparently because of practical considerations. They rule from a very shaky position, with the consent of the people which can be removed any time. Their job is to see the nation through to the next election, which everyone hopes will be democratic.

The nation, represented by students, will rebel at the first sign of abuse of power, or a return to Golkar's old repressive practices. If and when that happens, the target will be Golkar and all its organs, and the group will be banished forever, just like the New Order did to the Indonesian Communist Party in 1966. And then, for sure, we will see a bloodbath of the scale we saw in the 1960s.