How neutral is 'neutral'?

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.